Abunado v. People

VI — Prejudicial Question

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Pimentel v. PimentelPrevious case

Next: Magestrado v. PeopleNext case→

Case DigestWeek 4 - Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action

Abunado v. People

G.R. No. 159218 · March 30, 2004 · First Division

VI — Prejudicial Question

Petitioner: Salvador S. Abunado and Zenaida Biñas AbunadoRespondent: People of the Philippines

Core Doctrine

Under Article 40, Family Code, a party may not validly contract a subsequent marriage on the basis of the nullity of a previous marriage without first securing a final judicial declaration of that nullity. Since the first marriage remains valid and subsisting — as a matter of law — until such a final declaration issues, the pendency (or even the eventual grant) of a nullity petition filed after the second marriage was contracted is not a prejudicial question to a bigamy prosecution: the crime is already consummated at the moment the second marriage is contracted while the first remains legally undissolved. Allowing an accused to invoke a self-initiated, subsequently-filed nullity petition as a prejudicial question would "only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases," since "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" — a strategy the Court expressly refuses to sanction.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

VI. Prejudicial Question Full text: https://lawphil.net (G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004)

Facts

On September 18, 1967 Salvador S. Abunado married Narcisa Arceño at the Manila City Hall before Rev. Pedro Tiangco.
In 1988 Narcisa left to work in Japan; on returning in 1992 she learned he was having an affair and had left the conjugal home.
She found him in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato, and discovered that on January 10, 1989 he had married Zenaida Biñas before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal. He admitted he and Zenaida had first married in 1955 but, lacking documentary proof, "remarried" in 1989 at their son's request for his military-commission requirements.
On January 19, 1995 Salvador filed an annulment case against Narcisa.
On May 18, 1995 Narcisa filed bigamy against Salvador and Zenaida. Note the order — the nullity petition comes after the second marriage and before the bigamy charge.
On October 29, 1999 he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Narcisa.
On May 18, 2001 the RTC, Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal (Crim. Case No. 2803) convicted him of bigamy, imposing six years and one day to eight years and one day; Zenaida was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, appreciating his advanced age (76) as mitigating and reducing the sentence to two years, four months and one day of prisión correccional to six years and one day of prisión mayor.
On March 30, 2004 the First Division, through Justice Ynares-Santiago, affirmed, with Justice Carpio concurring separately.

Issue

Does an accused's own petition for judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage — filed after the second marriage was contracted and eventually granted — constitute a prejudicial question warranting suspension of the bigamy prosecution?

Secondary issues. Whether the Information's erroneous date (1995 instead of 1989) was a fatal defect; and whether the offended spouse's condonation extinguished criminal liability.

Ruling

NO. "A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused… 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. We cannot allow that." And "under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding," so "both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled."

Secondary issues. NO — the 1995 date was "an obvious typographical error," cured by the evidence and unopposed until appeal; he had been "sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." NO — "[a] pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action considering that a crime is committed against the State and the crime of Bigamy is a public offense which can be denounced not only by the person affected thereby but even by a civic-spirited citizen."

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26135, finding petitioner Salvador S. Abunado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The starting point is Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may validly contract another — so the first marriage remained legally subsisting throughout the period relevant to the charge.
Applying the prejudicial-question elements, the second fails: the civil issue does not "necessarily determine" guilt, because bigamy is complete the moment the second marriage is contracted while the first is undissolved. No later nullity declaration can retroactively undo a consummated crime.
The Court added an express policy ground. Allowing an after-the-fact, self-initiated nullity petition to suspend the prosecution would let any bigamy defendant manufacture a prejudicial question at will.
Justice Carpio's concurrence supplies the doctrinal frame, tracing Article 40's history and distinguishing it from the general rule that marriages void on other grounds are void ab initio without judicial declaration — Article 40 being a deliberate, narrow exception "for purposes of remarriage" alone.

Doctrine

No prejudicial question from a belated nullity petition. A pending — or even eventually successful — petition to declare the first marriage void, filed after the second was contracted, is not a prejudicial question to a bigamy prosecution: the offence was already consummated at the celebration of the second marriage, the first being legally subsisting under Article 40. Bigamy is a public offence, so the offended spouse's pardon or condonation does not extinguish criminal liability. An erroneous date in an Information is a formal defect, curable by evidence where the accused was not misled and failed to object timely.

Limits. Article 40 is an exception, not a general rule. Its judicial-declaration requirement operates "for purposes of remarriage" — it does not mean every void marriage must be judicially nullified before being treated as void for other legal purposes. The sequence is what decides these cases: a nullity action begun before the second marriage, or a first marriage already declared void before it, presents a different problem from Abunado's. Read alongside the companion authority on this syllabus, Beltran v. People — concubinage rather than bigamy, but the same premise that a marriage is presumed valid until judicially annulled — for the doctrine's contours across marital offences. And note the Information point is not a throwaway: it is the same formal-defect-waived-by-silence rule the sufficiency cases run on.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. This is the cluster's landmark bigamy case, directly and dispositively resolving whether a marriage-nullity action can operate as a prejudicial question to a bigamy charge — the doctrinal anchor for this specific fact pattern within the Topic.
Salvador Abunado married Narcisa Arceño in 1967. While that marriage subsisted, he contracted a second marriage to Zenaida Biñas on January 10, 1989. Upon discovering the second marriage (and Salvador's cohabitation with yet another woman), Narcisa filed a bigamy complaint in 1995; Salvador, for his part, filed his own petition to annul his marriage to Narcisa. The RTC convicted Salvador of bigamy (acquitting Zenaida for insufficiency of evidence); the CA affirmed with modification as to penalty.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Salvador raised three points, including that his petition for annulment/declaration of nullity of his marriage to Narcisa — in which he eventually obtained a judicial declaration of nullity on October 29, 1999 — constituted a prejudicial question that should have suspended the bigamy proceedings.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding 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." The Court further refused to allow the prejudicial-question doctrine to become a delay tactic available to any bigamy defendant who simply files a nullity petition after the fact. The Court affirmed the conviction (also rejecting Salvador's separate arguments regarding a defective Information and Narcisa's alleged condonation), modifying only to confirm the CA's already-reduced indeterminate sentence.

Facts

September 18, 1967: Salvador S. Abunado married Narcisa Arceño at the Manila City Hall, before Rev. Pedro Tiangco.
1988: Narcisa left for Japan to work; upon her return to the Philippines in 1992, she learned Salvador was having an extra-marital affair and had left their conjugal home.
Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon City, cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato, and discovered that on January 10, 1989, Salvador had contracted a second marriage with Zenaida Biñas before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal. (Salvador admitted he and Zenaida had actually first married in 1955, but, lacking documentary proof of that earlier union, they had "remarried" on January 10, 1989 at their son's request, for his military-commission requirements.)
January 19, 1995: Salvador filed an annulment case against Narcisa.
May 18, 1995: Narcisa filed a case for bigamy against Salvador and Zenaida.
May 18, 2001: The RTC, Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal (Criminal Case No. 2803) convicted Salvador of bigamy, sentencing him to six years and one day to eight years and one day; Zenaida was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, appreciating Salvador's advanced age (76) as a mitigating circumstance and reducing his indeterminate sentence to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Salvador filed the instant Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court, raising three arguments: (1) the Information was defective (alleging the bigamous marriage occurred in 1995, when it should have read 1989); (2) Narcisa's alleged "condonation" absolved him of criminal liability; and (3) his petition for annulment/nullity of his marriage to Narcisa — in which he eventually obtained a judicial declaration of nullity on October 29, 1999 — was a prejudicial question warranting suspension of the bigamy case.
March 30, 2004: The Supreme Court (Ynares-Santiago, J., First Division) rendered the Decision under digest, with Carpio, J., filing a Concurring Opinion.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners (Salvador and Zenaida Abunado).

Argued the Information's stated date of the bigamous marriage ("in or about... January, 1995") was a fatal defect, since the actual second marriage occurred on January 10, 1989.
Argued Narcisa's consent/condonation to the second marriage absolved Salvador of criminal liability.
Argued the pendency (and eventual grant) of his petition for judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage to Narcisa constituted a prejudicial question requiring suspension of the bigamy proceedings.

B. Respondent (People of the Philippines).

Maintained (through the CA's now-affirmed reasoning) that the Information's date reference was an obvious typographical error, cured by evidence and unopposed at trial; that a pardon by the offended spouse does not extinguish a public offense like bigamy; and that, under Art. 40, Family Code, the first marriage's validity subsisted until final judicial declaration of nullity — which postdated the second marriage by a decade — such that the bigamy was already consummated.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Does an accused's own petition for judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage — filed after, and eventually granted after, the contracting of a second marriage — constitute a prejudicial question warranting suspension of a bigamy prosecution?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the Information's erroneous date reference was a fatal defect.
Whether the offended spouse's alleged condonation extinguished criminal liability for bigamy.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — NO, no prejudicial question exists. "A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused... 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. We cannot allow that." The Court explained further: "under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding," such that "both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled."
SECONDARY ISSUE 1 — NO fatal defect. The 1995 date was "an obvious typographical error," cured by trial evidence and unopposed until appeal; petitioner had been "sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."
SECONDARY ISSUE 2 — NO, condonation does not apply. "[A] pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action considering that a crime is committed against the State and the crime of Bigamy is a public offense which can be denounced not only by the person affected thereby but even by a civic-spirited citizen."

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26135, finding petitioner Salvador S. Abunado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court applied Article 40, Family Code, which requires a final judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may validly contract a subsequent one — establishing that the first marriage remained legally subsisting throughout the period relevant to the bigamy charge, absent such a final declaration.
Step 2 — The Court applied the prejudicial-question elements test and found the second element (guilt/innocence "necessarily determined" by the civil issue) unsatisfied: since bigamy is complete upon the contracting of the second marriage while the first remains undissolved, no subsequent nullity declaration — however eventually obtained — can retroactively undo an already-consummated crime.
Step 3 — The Court articulated an explicit policy rationale against allowing self-initiated, after-the-fact nullity petitions to function as delay tactics, reasoning that permitting this would effectively let any bigamy defendant manufacture a prejudicial question at will.
Step 4 — The Court's holding was directly reinforced by Carpio, J.'s separate Concurring Opinion, which traced the historical evolution of Art. 40's requirement and distinguished it from the general rule (applicable to marriages void on other grounds) that void marriages are void ab initio without need of judicial declaration — Art. 40 being a deliberate, narrow exception "for purposes of remarriage" alone.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. A pending or even eventually-successful petition for judicial declaration of nullity of a first marriage, filed after a second marriage has been contracted, is not a prejudicial question to a bigamy prosecution — the offense being already consummated at the moment of the second marriage's celebration, while the first remained legally subsisting under Article 40, Family Code.
2. Bigamy is a public offense; the offended spouse's pardon or condonation does not extinguish criminal liability, since the offense is against the State.
3. An erroneous date in an Information is a mere formal defect, curable by evidence at trial, where the accused was not misled as to the true nature and factual basis of the charge and failed to timely object.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The Court's holding, and Carpio, J.'s concurrence, together clarify that Art. 40's judicial-declaration requirement is an exception, applicable specifically "for purposes of remarriage" — not a general rule that all void marriages require judicial nullification before being treated as void for other legal purposes.
This case should be read alongside the companion bigamy case Beltran v. People (concubinage, not bigamy, but applying the same underlying "marriage presumed valid until judicially annulled" logic) for the doctrine's full contours across related marital offenses.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. A landmark, frequently-cited authority squarely resolving the marriage-nullity/bigamy prejudicial-question pairing central to this Topic.

Separate Opinions

Carpio, J., Concurring: Concurred in the result, but wrote separately to clarify (and implicitly correct) the ponencia's broader statement that "a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding." Carpio explained that this is true only "for purposes of remarriage" under Art. 40's narrow exception; for all other purposes, a marriage void ab initio (e.g., under Arts. 35-36, Family Code) is void without need of any judicial declaration, citing his own earlier ponencia in Cariño v. Cariño. Carpio nonetheless voted to deny the petition and affirm the bigamy conviction, since Art. 40 squarely governed the remarriage context at issue.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Special Law

Article 40, Family Code

Executive Order No. 209 (The Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)

The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. (n).

The bigamy cases turn on this article. It requires a FINAL judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage before a party may validly remarry — so a void first marriage is still a subsisting one for purposes of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code until that declaration issues. That is why a nullity suit filed AFTER the bigamy charge is not a prejudicial question: its outcome cannot undo the accused having remarried without it.

LawPhil posts the 1987 text as amended by E.O. No. 227. Later amendments — notably R.A. No. 6809 lowering the age of majority and R.A. No. 10572 on absolute community — are not all reflected. Check the date of the decision against the article relied on.

Why it is cited here

The article that decides every bigamy prejudicial-question case.

"The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void."

So a void first marriage is still legally subsisting for remarriage purposes until a final declaration issues. The party may not decide for himself that it was void and remarry on that view.

That is why the first marriage "remained legally subsisting throughout the period relevant" to the charge — and why a nullity suit begun after the second marriage cannot rescue him. The offense was complete when he remarried without the declaration in hand.

Special Law

Article 349, Revised Penal Code

Bigamy

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

Why it is cited here

The offense, and the element Article 40 fixes.

Bigamy is committed by "any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead."

The element in issue is that the former marriage be undissolved at the time of the second. Article 40 supplies the answer: without a final declaration of nullity, it was.

The crime is therefore consummated at the moment of the second marriage, and nothing that happens afterwards — including a later declaration that the first was void all along — undoes what was already complete.

Implementing Rules

Section 7, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Elements of prejudicial question

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (5a)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

The two-element test, and which element fails.

"The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed."

Element (b) fails. Because Article 40 makes the absence of a declaration at the time of remarriage the operative fact, a later declaration of nullity would not determine guilt — the offense was complete without it.

Element (a) is often fatal too, since the nullity suit is typically filed after the criminal case. "Previously instituted" is chronological, as Pimentel holds, and a civil case filed later is disqualified whatever its merits.

Related notes:

Beltran v. People — companion case applying the same "marriage presumed valid until judicially annulled" logic in the concubinage context.
Pimentel v. Pimentel — companion case on marriage-validity questions in the structurally distinct parricide context.
Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Sec. 7, elements of prejudicial question.

Source: https://lawphil.net (Abunado v. People, G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004)

Cited laws & provisions

Article 40, Family Code

Special Law

Executive Order No. 209 (The Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)

The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. (n).

Why it is cited here

The article that decides every bigamy prejudicial-question case.

"The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void."

So a void first marriage is still legally subsisting for remarriage purposes until a final declaration issues. The party may not decide for himself that it was void and remarry on that view.

Full entry below ↓

Article 349, Revised Penal Code

Special Law

Bigamy

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

Why it is cited here

The offense, and the element Article 40 fixes.

The element in issue is that the former marriage be undissolved at the time of the second. Article 40 supplies the answer: without a final declaration of nullity, it was.

Full entry below ↓

Section 7, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Elements of prejudicial question

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

Why it is cited here

The two-element test, and which element fails.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

VI. Prejudicial Question Full text: https://lawphil.net (G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004)

Facts

On September 18, 1967 Salvador S. Abunado married Narcisa Arceño at the Manila City Hall before Rev. Pedro Tiangco.
In 1988 Narcisa left to work in Japan; on returning in 1992 she learned he was having an affair and had left the conjugal home.
She found him in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato, and discovered that on January 10, 1989 he had married Zenaida Biñas before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal. He admitted he and Zenaida had first married in 1955 but, lacking documentary proof, "remarried" in 1989 at their son's request for his military-commission requirements.
On January 19, 1995 Salvador filed an annulment case against Narcisa.
On May 18, 1995 Narcisa filed bigamy against Salvador and Zenaida. Note the order — the nullity petition comes after the second marriage and before the bigamy charge.
On October 29, 1999 he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Narcisa.
On May 18, 2001 the RTC, Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal (Crim. Case No. 2803) convicted him of bigamy, imposing six years and one day to eight years and one day; Zenaida was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, appreciating his advanced age (76) as mitigating and reducing the sentence to two years, four months and one day of prisión correccional to six years and one day of prisión mayor.
On March 30, 2004 the First Division, through Justice Ynares-Santiago, affirmed, with Justice Carpio concurring separately.

Issue

Secondary issues. Whether the Information's erroneous date (1995 instead of 1989) was a fatal defect; and whether the offended spouse's condonation extinguished criminal liability.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26135, finding petitioner Salvador S. Abunado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The starting point is Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may validly contract another — so the first marriage remained legally subsisting throughout the period relevant to the charge.
Applying the prejudicial-question elements, the second fails: the civil issue does not "necessarily determine" guilt, because bigamy is complete the moment the second marriage is contracted while the first is undissolved. No later nullity declaration can retroactively undo a consummated crime.
The Court added an express policy ground. Allowing an after-the-fact, self-initiated nullity petition to suspend the prosecution would let any bigamy defendant manufacture a prejudicial question at will.
Justice Carpio's concurrence supplies the doctrinal frame, tracing Article 40's history and distinguishing it from the general rule that marriages void on other grounds are void ab initio without judicial declaration — Article 40 being a deliberate, narrow exception "for purposes of remarriage" alone.

Doctrine

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. This is the cluster's landmark bigamy case, directly and dispositively resolving whether a marriage-nullity action can operate as a prejudicial question to a bigamy charge — the doctrinal anchor for this specific fact pattern within the Topic.
Salvador Abunado married Narcisa Arceño in 1967. While that marriage subsisted, he contracted a second marriage to Zenaida Biñas on January 10, 1989. Upon discovering the second marriage (and Salvador's cohabitation with yet another woman), Narcisa filed a bigamy complaint in 1995; Salvador, for his part, filed his own petition to annul his marriage to Narcisa. The RTC convicted Salvador of bigamy (acquitting Zenaida for insufficiency of evidence); the CA affirmed with modification as to penalty.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Salvador raised three points, including that his petition for annulment/declaration of nullity of his marriage to Narcisa — in which he eventually obtained a judicial declaration of nullity on October 29, 1999 — constituted a prejudicial question that should have suspended the bigamy proceedings.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding 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." The Court further refused to allow the prejudicial-question doctrine to become a delay tactic available to any bigamy defendant who simply files a nullity petition after the fact. The Court affirmed the conviction (also rejecting Salvador's separate arguments regarding a defective Information and Narcisa's alleged condonation), modifying only to confirm the CA's already-reduced indeterminate sentence.

Facts

September 18, 1967: Salvador S. Abunado married Narcisa Arceño at the Manila City Hall, before Rev. Pedro Tiangco.
1988: Narcisa left for Japan to work; upon her return to the Philippines in 1992, she learned Salvador was having an extra-marital affair and had left their conjugal home.
Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon City, cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato, and discovered that on January 10, 1989, Salvador had contracted a second marriage with Zenaida Biñas before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal. (Salvador admitted he and Zenaida had actually first married in 1955, but, lacking documentary proof of that earlier union, they had "remarried" on January 10, 1989 at their son's request, for his military-commission requirements.)
January 19, 1995: Salvador filed an annulment case against Narcisa.
May 18, 1995: Narcisa filed a case for bigamy against Salvador and Zenaida.
May 18, 2001: The RTC, Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal (Criminal Case No. 2803) convicted Salvador of bigamy, sentencing him to six years and one day to eight years and one day; Zenaida was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, appreciating Salvador's advanced age (76) as a mitigating circumstance and reducing his indeterminate sentence to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Salvador filed the instant Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court, raising three arguments: (1) the Information was defective (alleging the bigamous marriage occurred in 1995, when it should have read 1989); (2) Narcisa's alleged "condonation" absolved him of criminal liability; and (3) his petition for annulment/nullity of his marriage to Narcisa — in which he eventually obtained a judicial declaration of nullity on October 29, 1999 — was a prejudicial question warranting suspension of the bigamy case.
March 30, 2004: The Supreme Court (Ynares-Santiago, J., First Division) rendered the Decision under digest, with Carpio, J., filing a Concurring Opinion.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners (Salvador and Zenaida Abunado).

Argued the Information's stated date of the bigamous marriage ("in or about... January, 1995") was a fatal defect, since the actual second marriage occurred on January 10, 1989.
Argued Narcisa's consent/condonation to the second marriage absolved Salvador of criminal liability.
Argued the pendency (and eventual grant) of his petition for judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage to Narcisa constituted a prejudicial question requiring suspension of the bigamy proceedings.

B. Respondent (People of the Philippines).

Maintained (through the CA's now-affirmed reasoning) that the Information's date reference was an obvious typographical error, cured by evidence and unopposed at trial; that a pardon by the offended spouse does not extinguish a public offense like bigamy; and that, under Art. 40, Family Code, the first marriage's validity subsisted until final judicial declaration of nullity — which postdated the second marriage by a decade — such that the bigamy was already consummated.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Does an accused's own petition for judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage — filed after, and eventually granted after, the contracting of a second marriage — constitute a prejudicial question warranting suspension of a bigamy prosecution?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the Information's erroneous date reference was a fatal defect.
Whether the offended spouse's alleged condonation extinguished criminal liability for bigamy.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — NO, no prejudicial question exists. "A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused... 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. We cannot allow that." The Court explained further: "under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding," such that "both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled."
SECONDARY ISSUE 1 — NO fatal defect. The 1995 date was "an obvious typographical error," cured by trial evidence and unopposed until appeal; petitioner had been "sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."
SECONDARY ISSUE 2 — NO, condonation does not apply. "[A] pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action considering that a crime is committed against the State and the crime of Bigamy is a public offense which can be denounced not only by the person affected thereby but even by a civic-spirited citizen."

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26135, finding petitioner Salvador S. Abunado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court applied Article 40, Family Code, which requires a final judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may validly contract a subsequent one — establishing that the first marriage remained legally subsisting throughout the period relevant to the bigamy charge, absent such a final declaration.
Step 2 — The Court applied the prejudicial-question elements test and found the second element (guilt/innocence "necessarily determined" by the civil issue) unsatisfied: since bigamy is complete upon the contracting of the second marriage while the first remains undissolved, no subsequent nullity declaration — however eventually obtained — can retroactively undo an already-consummated crime.
Step 3 — The Court articulated an explicit policy rationale against allowing self-initiated, after-the-fact nullity petitions to function as delay tactics, reasoning that permitting this would effectively let any bigamy defendant manufacture a prejudicial question at will.
Step 4 — The Court's holding was directly reinforced by Carpio, J.'s separate Concurring Opinion, which traced the historical evolution of Art. 40's requirement and distinguished it from the general rule (applicable to marriages void on other grounds) that void marriages are void ab initio without need of judicial declaration — Art. 40 being a deliberate, narrow exception "for purposes of remarriage" alone.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. A pending or even eventually-successful petition for judicial declaration of nullity of a first marriage, filed after a second marriage has been contracted, is not a prejudicial question to a bigamy prosecution — the offense being already consummated at the moment of the second marriage's celebration, while the first remained legally subsisting under Article 40, Family Code.
2. Bigamy is a public offense; the offended spouse's pardon or condonation does not extinguish criminal liability, since the offense is against the State.
3. An erroneous date in an Information is a mere formal defect, curable by evidence at trial, where the accused was not misled as to the true nature and factual basis of the charge and failed to timely object.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The Court's holding, and Carpio, J.'s concurrence, together clarify that Art. 40's judicial-declaration requirement is an exception, applicable specifically "for purposes of remarriage" — not a general rule that all void marriages require judicial nullification before being treated as void for other legal purposes.
This case should be read alongside the companion bigamy case Beltran v. People (concubinage, not bigamy, but applying the same underlying "marriage presumed valid until judicially annulled" logic) for the doctrine's full contours across related marital offenses.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. A landmark, frequently-cited authority squarely resolving the marriage-nullity/bigamy prejudicial-question pairing central to this Topic.

Separate Opinions

Carpio, J., Concurring: Concurred in the result, but wrote separately to clarify (and implicitly correct) the ponencia's broader statement that "a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding." Carpio explained that this is true only "for purposes of remarriage" under Art. 40's narrow exception; for all other purposes, a marriage void ab initio (e.g., under Arts. 35-36, Family Code) is void without need of any judicial declaration, citing his own earlier ponencia in Cariño v. Cariño. Carpio nonetheless voted to deny the petition and affirm the bigamy conviction, since Art. 40 squarely governed the remarriage context at issue.