FACTS:

The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Dr. Vincent Paul G. Mercado, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for bigamy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the petitioner and imposed a prison term of three (3) years, four (4) months and fifteen (15) days of prision correccional, as a minimum of his indeterminate sentence, to eight (8) years and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as a maximum, plus accessory penalties provided by law.

The facts established by the trial court are as follows:

Dr. Vincent Mercado and Ma. Consuelo Tan got married on June 27, 1991, and a Marriage Contract stating the accused's status as "single" was duly executed and signed by them. However, it is undisputed that at the time of their wedding, the accused was already married to Ma. Thelma Oliva. The marriage between the accused and Thelma Oliva was solemnized on April 10, 1976, and confirmed in a church ceremony on June 29, 1991. Both marriages were consummated, resulting in children from both unions.

A complaint for bigamy was filed against the accused on October 5, 1992, and on November 13, 1992, the accused filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Thelma Oliva. In a decision dated May 6, 1993, the marriage between the accused and Thelma Oliva was declared null and void.

The accused was charged with bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code for contracting a second marriage with Ma. Consuelo Tan without legally dissolving his previous marriage. The essential elements of the crime of bigamy were established, as the accused was previously legally married and the first marriage was not legally dissolved when he contracted the second marriage.

The accused argued that his previous marriage had been judicially declared null and void, and that the complainant had knowledge of this fact. However, it was established that at the time of the second marriage, no judicial declaration of nullity of the accused's first marriage had been obtained. Thus, the accused was still a married man when he contracted the second marriage with the complainant.

The Court of Appeals and the trial court ruled that the accused committed bigamy by entering into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of his previous marriage.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary as a defense in a bigamy charge.

2. Whether a subsequent marriage contracted after a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is void ab initio.

3. Whether the pending petition to declare the accused's previous marriage null and void is a prejudicial question in the bigamy case.

4. Whether the accused is guilty of bigamy.

RULING:

1. Yes, a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary as a defense in a bigamy charge. The Court held that a void marriage, even if it is declared void ab initio, still requires a judicial declaration of nullity for all legal intents and purposes. Without such declaration, the person would still be regarded as a married individual at the time of contracting the subsequent marriage.

2. No, a subsequent marriage contracted after a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is not void ab initio. The Court ruled that a subsequent marriage contracted after a judicial declaration of nullity is valid and not subject to criminal liability for bigamy.

3. The pending petition to declare the accused's previous marriage null and void is not a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. The Court held that the crime of bigamy had already been consummated before the filing of the petition, and allowing the accused to invoke the pendency of the petition as a prejudicial question would encourage delay in the prosecution of bigamy cases.

4. The accused is guilty of bigamy. The Court found that the accused contracted a second marriage while his previous marriage was still subsisting, and the defense of the accused that he believed his previous marriage to be void was not valid since it was proven that he was aware of his first wife and they even had two children together.

PRINCIPLES:

• A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary as a defense in a bigamy charge, even if the previous marriage is void ab initio.

• A subsequent marriage contracted after a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is valid and not subject to criminal liability for bigamy.

• The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage solely on the basis of a final judgment declaring such marriage void, as provided for under Article 40 of the Family Code.

• A judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage is necessary before one can contract a second marriage. Absent that declaration, one may be charged with and convicted of bigamy.

• For purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential.

• The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. There must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage before contracting a second marriage.

• The pending petition to declare a previous marriage null and void is not a prejudicial question in a bigamy case if the crime of bigamy had already been consummated before the filing of the petition.

• To successfully claim damages, the claimant must show that he/she was an innocent victim and had no knowledge of the existing marriage at the time of contracting the second marriage.