VICTORIA JARILLA versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
September 29, 2009
Facts:
Petitioner’s wife charged him with the crime of Bigamy for having a marriage with another woman while he had a subsisting marriage. In the Decision dated September 29, 2009, the Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction for bigamy. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the Decision, arguing that since petitioner’s marriages were entered into before the effectivity of the Family Code, then the applicable law is Section 29 of the Marriage Law (Act 3613), instead of Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void before a person may contract a subsequent marriage; hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the Marriage Law (Act 3613) should apply in this case
Ruling:
Petitioner’s argument lacks merit. As far back as 1995, in Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr., the Court already made the declaration that Article 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively because Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides that said “Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights.” In the case at bar, respondent’s clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. Petitioner’s contentions cannot be upheld. The petition is therefore denied with finality.
