Article 36, NCCJAMES WALTER P. CAPILI vs. PEOPLE AND SHIRLEY TISMO-CAPILI.G.R. No. 183805               July 3, 2013

Facts: In September 1999, James Capili married Karla Medina. But then, just three months later in December 1999, he married another woman named Shirley Tismo.

In 2004, Karla Medina filed an action for declaration of nullity of the second marriage between Capili and Tismo. In June 2004, Tismo filed a bigamy case against Capili.

Before a decision can be had in the bigamy case, the action filed by Karla Medina was granted and Capili’s marriage with Tismo was declared void by reason of the subsisting marriage between Medina and Capili. Thereafter, Capili filed a motion to dismiss in the bigamy case. He alleged that since the second marriage was already declared void ab initio (at the very beginning) that marriage never took place and that therefore, there is no bigamy to speak of.

The prosecutor filed a motion stating, among others, that the issues raised in the civil case (declaration of nullity) are not similar or intimately related to the issue in the bigamy case and that the resolution of the issues in said civil case would not determine whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

The trial court agreed with Capili and it dismissed the bigamy case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court.

Issue: WON the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage?

Held: Yes. The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner’s assertion would only

delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case.

The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to [private complainant] had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.

Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.

Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.