A woman accused of bigamy has been acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC) after it ruled that an accused may invoke the void nature of a marriage as a defense in a criminal case even without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC's Third Division cleared Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira of bigamy after finding that her first marriage was void from the start because it lacked a marriage license, a requirement under the Family Code.
The ruling overturned decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which had convicted Lapira on the ground that she could not treat her first marriage as void without first securing a court declaration of nullity.
The case stemmed from Lapira's marriage to Jimmy Fariscal in April 2001.
A later custody dispute led Fariscal to discover records showing that Lapira had previously married Japanese national Takahiko Sato in August 2000.
He subsequently filed a bigamy complaint against her.
Lapira maintained that the marriage to Sato was merely intended to facilitate her entry into Japan and that no actual wedding ceremony took place.
More significantly, she presented a certification from the local civil registrar in Imus, Cavite, stating that no marriage license had been issued for her supposed marriage to Sato.
The SC found that the absence of a marriage license rendered the first marriage void ab initio, or legally inexistent from the beginning. As a result, one of the essential elements of bigamy, a valid prior marriage, was missing.
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, bigamy requires proof that the accused had been legally married before contracting a subsequent marriage.
Since Lapira successfully showed that the first marriage was void, the prosecution failed to establish that requirement, the Court said.
The high tribunal also rejected the argument of the Office of the Solicitor General that the marriage certificate alone was sufficient proof of a valid prior marriage.
It said the presumption of validity attached to the marriage certificate had been rebutted by the civil registrar's certification showing that no marriage license was issued.
Citing jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that a marriage may be proven void due to the absence of a marriage license through the marriage contract itself or a certification from the local civil registrar confirming that no license was issued.
The Court further held that requiring a prior judicial declaration of nullity before an accused can raise a void marriage as a defense in a bigamy case would unfairly favor the state and run contrary to the principle that penal laws must be interpreted strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused.