Analyzing the Pulido v. People Case: Exoneration from Criminal Liability for Bigamy

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, through the en banc decision in Pulido v. People (G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021), exonerated an accused individual from criminal liability for bigamy. The case presented a significant departure from previous legal interpretations and set a new precedent regarding the requirement for a prior judicial declaration of nullity in bigamy cases.

Before the Pulido case, previous decisions had consistently held that individuals who entered into a second marriage without obtaining a prior court declaration of

nullity for their first marriage were still liable for bigamy, even if the first marriage was subsequently declared void by a court. This approach was based on Article 40 of the Family Code, which mandates a prior judicial declaration of nullity for purposes of remarriage.

The Pulido case involved a petitioner who had contracted two marriages. The petitioner argued that the first marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage license, and therefore, he should be exonerated from the bigamy charges. However, the lower courts convicted the petitioner based on the lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity for the first marriage at the time of contracting the second marriage.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized that for a charge of bigamy to stand, there must have been a prior valid marriage. The court held that a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity obtained after contracting the second marriage would not give rise to bigamy because a void marriage is deemed non-existent from the beginning.

Furthermore, the court clarified that the requirement of a prior judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 of the Family Code should be limited to purposes of remarriage and should

not be extended to criminal cases such as bigamy. In essence, the court asserted that an accused individual in a bigamy case should not be compelled to raise the defense of nullity of the first marriage based on Article 40.

The Pulido ruling not only exonerated the petitioner but also had far-reaching implications on the concept of a prejudicial question in bigamy cases. A prejudicial question arises when the resolution of a civil case is determinative of the criminal case. Prior to Pulido, it was generally held that a pending marriage nullification case did not pose a prejudicial question in a bigamy case. However, the Pulido ruling necessitates a reassessment of this position, as the resolution of the marriage nullification issue now becomes crucial in determining whether the criminal case for bigamy should proceed.

Additionally, the retroactive effect of the Pulido doctrine is significant. Accused individuals who were previously convicted of bigamy despite a prior judicial declaration of nullity for their marriage may now invoke the Pulido doctrine. Under established legal principles, favorable decisions should have a retroactive effect, particularly when they form part of the law and uphold the constitutional right to equal protection.

In conclusion, the Pulido v. People case stands as a groundbreaking ruling that redefines the requirements for bigamy cases. By highlighting the distinction between the need for a prior judicial declaration of nullity in the context of remarriage and its application to criminal cases, the Supreme Court has provided clarity and protection for individuals facing bigamy charges. The Pulido doctrine's retroactive effect also ensures that those previously convicted under different interpretations can seek relief and potentially secure their release from prison through appropriate legal remedies, such as a petition for habeas corpus.