No valid first marriage, no bigamy

In Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira y Tungol v Jimmy Fariscal and People of the Philippines (G.R. 233512) promulgated on 20 February 2026, the Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Benjamin S. Caguioa, clarified that a person prosecuted for bigamy may prove that the supposed first marriage was void from the very beginning.

The case arose from an Information charging Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira with bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The prosecution alleged that she married Takahiko Sato on 3 August 2000 in Meycauayan, Bulacan, and while that marriage remained subsisting, contracted another marriage with Jimmy Fariscal on 17 April 2001 in Guagua, Pampanga.

During the trial, Jimmy testified that he and Imelda married, had a child, and lived together until she left for Japan in November 2004. He later discovered through civil registry records that she had previously married Takahiko. The prosecution also presented the minister who solemnized the first marriage, but his testimony was stricken from the record after he failed to appear for cross-examination.

Imelda denied committing bigamy. She claimed that her supposed marriage to Takahiko was merely an arrangement intended to facilitate her entry into Japan. No marriage ceremony took place; she signed only a blank sheet of paper, and she never applied for a marriage license.

The Local Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite testified that its office had no record of any marriage license application by Imelda and Takahiko. A certification dated 14 January 2009 confirmed that the relevant records for 2000 remained intact.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Imelda. It held that she remained married to Takahiko when she married Jimmy and could not unilaterally declare her first marriage invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the first marriage had not been judicially declared void before the second marriage was celebrated.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed and acquitted Imelda on reasonable doubt. Applying the en banc ruling in Pulido v People (G.R. 220149, 27 July 2021), it explained that an accused need not first obtain a separate judicial declaration of absolute nullity before invoking a marriage that was void ab initio as a defense in a prosecution for bigamy.

Article 349 of the RPC requires the prosecution to establish four elements: the accused was legally married; the first marriage had not been legally dissolved, or the absent spouse had not been judicially declared presumptively dead; the accused contracted a subsequent marriage; and the subsequent marriage would have been valid were it not for the first marriage.

A valid prior marriage is therefore indispensable. If the supposed first marriage was void from its inception, it legally never existed. Consequently, an essential element of bigamy is absent.

The Court found the absence of a marriage license decisive. Under Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, a marriage license is a formal requisite of marriage, except in cases expressly exempted by law. Its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. Consistent with Cariaga v Republic (G.R. 248643, 7 December 2021), the absence of a license may be established through the marriage contract itself or a certification from the local civil registrar that no license was issued.

Imelda’s certification satisfied this evidentiary standard. It likewise rebutted the presumption arising from the marriage certificate as a public record. Once that presumption was overcome, the certificate could no longer substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt that Imelda and Takahiko had entered into a valid marriage. With no other competent evidence establishing the validity of the first marriage, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden.

The ruling does not mean that anyone may simply disregard a marriage believed to be defective. Article 40 of the Family Code still requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void when its nullity is invoked for purposes of remarriage.

Lapira addresses a different question: whether the State has proven every element of the crime of bigamy. In that criminal setting, the accused may challenge the validity of a marriage that was void from the beginning, even without a prior judgment declaring its nullity.

The distinction between void and voidable marriages is equally important. Pulido teaches that a voidable marriage remains valid until annulled. Thus, an annulment obtained after the second marriage does not erase bigamy already consummated while the first marriage was subsisting.

A void marriage, on the other hand, produces no legal bond from its inception.

Ultimately, Lapira reinforces two fundamental principles of criminal law: penal laws must be strictly construed against the State, and every element of an offense must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

A marriage certificate may begin the inquiry, but it does not necessarily end it. Where competent evidence establishes the absence of an essential requisite of marriage, courts cannot simply rely on presumptions to sustain a criminal conviction.

For while the law protects the sanctity of marriage, it must equally safeguard the liberty of an individual against a conviction for a crime whose essential elements have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.