Is a person still liable for the crime of bigamy despite the fact that after contracting the second

marriage, his first marriage is judicially declared null and void? This is the question once more
raised and resolved in the case of Celso.
On November 26, 1992, Celso and Mely were civilly married at the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Muntinlupa City. After their marriage, Mely left to work abroad and would only come home to the
Philippines for vacations. Such situation apparently led Celso into the arms of another woman,
Emma whom he courted and eventually married on December 10, 2001 in Meycauayan,
Bulacan in a religious ceremony of a Protestant Church.
So when Mely went home for a vacation in 2002, she was informed of such marriage between
Celso and Emma. To verify the information, she went to the National Statistics Office and
secured a copy of the marriage certificate confirming the marriage of Celso and Emma. But
since she was working abroad, she had no time to immediately take any steps against Celso.
It was only on February 13, 2006, when Melys uncle filed before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Malolos, a complaint accusing Celso of committing the crime of bigamy. And on
June 8, 2006, Celso was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan with bigamy
defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
In the meantime, it turned out that Celso has also filed an action before the RTC of Caloocan
City seeking the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Mely on the ground of the latters
physical incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligation. And on May 4, 2006, the RTC
of Caloocan rendered a decision declaring the marriage of Celso and Mely null and void. This
decision became final on June 28, 2006 by virtue of the issuance of a certificate of finality.
Using this final judgment declaring his first marriage to Mely null and void, Celso claimed that
there is no bigamy to speak of because there is in effect no such first marriage to Mely. He tried
to differentiate between a previously valid but voidable marriage and a marriage null and void
from the beginning (ab initio) and contended that while avoidable marriage requires a judicial
dissolution before one can validly contract a second marriage, a void marriage need not be
judicially determined.
But on August 15, 2007 the RTC nevertheless convicted Celso of the crime of bigamy and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, minimum
to 6 years and 1 day as maximum. Was the trial court correct?
Yes. A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a
person can contract a second marriage. Parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume
that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of
the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.
In this case, Celso legally married Mely on November 26, 1992. He contracted a second and
subsequent marriage with Emma on December 10, 2001. At the time of his second marriage to
Emma, his first marriage to Mely was still legally subsisting. The decision declaring his first
marriage to Mely became final only on June 27, 2006 or about 5 years after his second
marriage to Emma. It is evident therefore has committed the crime charged. Criminal culpability
attaches to the offender upon commission of the offense.

If Celsos contention will be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade
prosecution or conviction by immediately filing a petition for declaration of nullity of his earlier
marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a
complaint against him or before he is convicted of the crime charged (Teves vs. People, et.al.,
G.R. 188775, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA, 307).