THIRD DIVISION the celebration of the wedding with complainant,

[G.R. No. 137110. August 1, 2000] accused was actually a married man, having been in
VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO a.k.a. VINCENT G. lawful wedlock with Ma. Thelma Oliva in a marriage
MERCADO, petitioner, vs. CONSUELO ceremony solemnized on April 10, 1976 by Judge
TAN, respondent. Leonardo B. Caares, CFI-Br. XIV, Cebu City per
Marriage Certificate issued in connection therewith,
DECISION which matrimony was further blessed by Rev. Father
Arthur Baur on October 10, 1976 in religious rites at
PANGANIBAN, J.: the Sacred Heart Church, Cebu City. In the same
manner, the civil marriage between accused and
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous complainant was confirmed in a church ceremony on
marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can June 29, 1991 officiated by Msgr. Victorino A. Rivas,
be legally contracted. One who enters into a Judicial Vicar, Diocese of Bacolod City. Both
subsequent marriage without first obtaining marriages were consummated when out of the first
such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This consortium, Ma. Thelma Oliva bore accused two
principle applies even if the earlier union is children, while a child, Vincent Paul, Jr. was sired by
characterized by statute as void. accused with complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan.

On October 5, 1992, a letter-complaint for bigamy

The Case was filed by complainant through counsel with the
City Prosecutor of Bacolod City, which eventually
resulted [in] the institution of the present case before
Before us is a Petition for Review this Court against said accused, Dr. Vincent G.
on Certiorari assailing the July 14, 1998 Decision of Mercado, on March 1, 1993 in an Information dated
the Court of Appeals (CA)[1] in CA-GR CR No. 19830 January 22, 1993.
and its January 4, 1999 Resolution denying
reconsideration. The assailed Decision affirmed the On November 13, 1992, or more than a month after
ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod the bigamy case was lodged in the Prosecutors
City in Criminal Case No. 13848, which convicted Office, accused filed an action for Declaration of
herein petitioner of bigamy as follows: Nullity of Marriage against Ma. Thelma V. Oliva in
RTC-Br. 22, Cebu City, and in a Decision dated May
WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of accused Dr. 6, 1993 the marriage between Vincent G. Mercado
Vincent Paul G. Mercado a.k.a. Dr. Vincent G. and Ma. Thelma V. Oliva was declared null and void.
Mercado of the crime of Bigamy punishable under
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code to have been Accused is charged [with] bigamy under Article 349
proven beyond reasonable doubt, [the court hereby of the Revised Penal Code for having contracted a
renders] judgment imposing upon him a prison term second marriage with herein complainant Ma.
of three (3) years, four (4) months and fifteen (15) Consuelo Tan on June 27, 1991 when at that time
days of prision correccional, as minimum of his he was previously united in lawful marriage with Ma.
indeterminate sentence, to eight (8) years and Thelma V. Oliva on April 10, 1976 at Cebu City,
twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, without said first marriage having been legally
plus accessory penalties provided by law. dissolved. As shown by the evidence and admitted
by accused, all the essential elements of the crime
Costs against accused.[2] are present, namely: (a) that the offender has been
previously legally married; (2) that the first marriage
has not been legally dissolved or in case the spouse
is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
The Facts presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that
he contract[ed] a second or subsequent marriage;
and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage
The facts are quoted by Court of Appeals (CA) ha[d] all the essential requisites for validity. x x x
from the trial courts judgment, as follows: From the
evidence adduced by the parties, there is no dispute
While acknowledging the existence of the two
that accused Dr. Vincent Mercado and complainant
marriage[s], accused posited the defense that his
Ma. Consuelo Tan got married on June 27, 1991
previous marriage ha[d] been judicially declared null
before MTCC-Bacolod City Br. 7 Judge Gorgonio J.
and void and that the private complainant had
Ibaez [by reason of] which a Marriage Contract was
knowledge of the first marriage of accused.
duly executed and signed by the parties. As entered
in said document, the status of accused was
single. There is no dispute either that at the time of

1
It is an admitted fact that when the second marriage The Courts Ruling
was entered into with Ma. Consuelo Tan on June 27,
1991, accuseds prior marriage with Ma. Thelma V.
Oliva was subsisting, no judicial action having yet The Petition is not meritorious.
been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as
to the nullity of such prior marriage with Ma. Thelma
V. Oliva. Since no declaration of the nullity of his first Main Issue:Effect of Nullity of Previous Marriage
marriage ha[d] yet been made at the time of his
second marriage, it is clear that accused was a
married man when he contracted such second Petitioner was convicted of bigamy under
marriage with complainant on June 27, 1991. He Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which
was still at the time validly married to his first wife.[3] provides:

The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon

Ruling of the Court of Appeals any person who shall contract a second or
subsequent marriage before the former marriage
has been legally dissolved, or before the absent
Agreeing with the lower court, the Court of spouse has been declared presumptively dead by
Appeals stated: means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute
nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for The elements of this crime are as follows:
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring such previous marriage void. But 1. That the offender has been legally married;
here, the final judgment declaring null and void
accuseds previous marriage came not before the
2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved
celebration of the second marriage, but after, when
or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
the case for bigamy against accused was already
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according
tried in court. And what constitutes the crime of
to the Civil Code;
bigamy is the act of any person who shall contract a
second subsequent marriage before the former
marriage has been legally dissolved.[4] 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent
marriage;
Hence, this Petition.[5]
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all
The Issues the essential requisites for validity.[7]
In his Memorandum, petitioner raises the
following issues: When the Information was filed on January 22,
1993, all the elements of bigamy were present. It is
undisputed that petitioner married Thelma G. Oliva
A
on April 10, 1976 in Cebu City. While that marriage
was still subsisting, he contracted a second
Whether or not the element of previous legal marriage, this time with Respondent Ma. Consuelo
marriage is present in order to convict petitioner. Tan who subsequently filed the Complaint for
bigamy.
B
Petitioner contends, however, that he obtained
a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage
Whether or not a liberal interpretation in favor of
under Article 36 of the Family Code, thereby
petitioner of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code
rendering it void ab initio. Unlike voidable marriages
punishing bigamy, in relation to Articles 36 and 40 of
which are considered valid until set aside by a
the Family Code, negates the guilt of petitioner.
competent court, he argues that a void marriage is
deemed never to have taken place at all.[8] Thus, he
C concludes that there is no first marriage to speak
of. Petitioner also quotes the commentaries[9] of
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to an acquittal on former Justice Luis Reyes that it is now settled that
the basis of reasonable doubt.[6] if the first marriage is void from the beginning, it is a
defense in a bigamy charge. But if the first marriage
is voidable, it is not a defense.

2
 Respondent, on the other hand, admits that the In Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy,[15] the Court stressed
first marriage was declared null and void under the need for such declaration. In that case, Karl
Article 36 of the Family Code, but she points out that Heinz Wiegel filed an action for the declaration of
that declaration came only after the Information had nullity of his marriage to Lilia Olivia Wiegel on the
been filed. Hence, by then, the crime had already ground that the latter had a prior existing
been consummated. She argues that a judicial marriage. After pretrial, Lilia asked that she be
declaration of nullity of a void previous marriage allowed to present evidence to prove, among others,
must be obtained before a person can marry for a that her first husband had previously been married
subsequent time. to another woman. In holding that there was no need
for such evidence, the Court ruled: x x x There is
We agree with the respondent. likewise no need of introducing evidence about the
To be sure, jurisprudence regarding the need existing prior marriage of her first husband at the
for a judicial declaration of nullity of the previous time they married each other, for then such a
marriage has been characterized as marriage though void still needs, according to this
conflicting.[10] In People v. Mendoza,[11] a bigamy Court, a judicial declaration of such fact and for all
case involving an accused who married three times, legal intents and purposes she would still be
the Court ruled that there was no need for such regarded as a married woman at the time she
declaration. In that case, the accused contracted a contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz
second marriage during the subsistence of the Wiegel; x x x.
first. When the first wife died, he married for the third Subsequently, in Yap v. CA,[16] the Court
time. The second wife then charged him with reverted to the ruling in People v. Mendoza, holding
bigamy. Acquitting him, the Court held that the that there was no need for such declaration of nullity.
second marriage was void ab initio because it had
been contracted while the first marriage was still in In Domingo v. CA,[17] the issue raised was
effect. Since the second marriage was obviously whether a judicial declaration of nullity was still
void and illegal, the Court ruled that there was no necessary for the recovery and the separation of
need for a judicial declaration of its nullity. Hence, properties of erstwhile spouses. Ruling in the
the accused did not commit bigamy when he married affirmative, the Court declared: The Family Code
for the third time. This ruling was affirmed by the has settled once and for all the conflicting
Court in People v. Aragon,[12] which involved jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the
substantially the same facts. absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly
required either as a cause of action or a ground for
But in subsequent cases, the Court impressed defense; in fact, the requirement for a declaration of
the need for a judicial declaration of nullity. In Vda absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the
de Consuegra v. GSIS,[13] Jose Consuegra married protection of the spouse who, believing that his or
for the second time while the first marriage was still her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With
subsisting. Upon his death, the Court awarded one the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first
half of the proceeds of his retirement benefits to the marriage, the person who marries again cannot be
first wife and the other half to the second wife and charged with bigamy.[18]
her children, notwithstanding the manifest nullity of
the second marriage. It held: And with respect to the Unlike Mendoza and Aragon, Domingo as well
right of the second wife, this Court observes that as the other cases herein cited was not a criminal
although the second marriage can be presumed to prosecution for
be void ab initio as it was celebrated while the first bigamy. Nonetheless, Domingo underscored the
marriage was still subsisting, still there is need for need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a void
judicial declaration of such nullity. marriage on the basis of a new provision of the
Family Code, which came into effect several years
In Tolentino v. Paras,[14] however, the Court after the promulgation of Mendoza and Aragon.
again held that judicial declaration of nullity of a void
marriage was not necessary. In that case, a man In Mendoza and Aragon, the Court relied on
married twice. In his Death Certificate, his second Section 29 of Act No. 3613 (Marriage Law), which
wife was named as his surviving spouse. The first provided:
wife then filed a Petition to correct the said entry in
the Death Certificate. The Court ruled in favor of the Illegal marriages. Any marriage subsequently
first wife, holding that the second marriage that he contracted by any person during the lifetime of the
contracted with private respondent during the first spouse shall be illegal and void from its
lifetime of the first spouse is null and void from the performance, unless:
beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial
decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a
(a) The first marriage was annulled or
void marriage.
dissolved;

3
 (b) The first spouse had been absent for declaration, we hold that one may be charged with
seven consecutive years at the time of and convicted of bigamy.
the second marriage without the
spouse present having news of the The present ruling is consistent with our
absentee being alive, or the absentee pronouncement in Terre v. Terre,[21] which involved
being generally considered as dead an administrative Complaint against a lawyer for
and believed to be so by the spouse marrying twice. In rejecting the lawyers argument
present at the time of contracting such that he was free to enter into a second marriage
subsequent marriage, the marriage as because the first one was void ab initio, the Court
contracted being valid in either case ruled: for purposes of determining whether a person
until declared null and void by a is legally free to contract a second marriage, a
competent court." judicial declaration that the first marriage was null
and void ab initio is essential. The Court further
The Court held in those two cases that the said noted that the said rule was cast into statutory form
provision plainly makes a subsequent marriage by Article 40 of the Family Code. Significantly, it
contracted by any person during the lifetime of his observed that the second marriage, contracted
first spouse illegal and void from its performance, without a judicial declaration that the first marriage
and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its was void, was bigamous and criminal in character.
invalidity, as distinguished from mere annulable
marriages.[19] Moreover, Justice Reyes, an authority in
Criminal Law whose earlier work was cited by
The provision appeared in substantially the petitioner, changed his view on the subject in view of
same form under Article 83 of the 1950 Civil Code Article 40 of the Family Code and wrote in 1993 that
and Article 41 of the Family Code. However, Article a person must first obtain a judicial declaration of the
40 of the Family Code, a new provision, expressly nullity of a void marriage before contracting a
requires a judicial declaration of nullity of the subsequent marriage:[22]
previous marriage, as follows:
It is now settled that the fact that the first marriage is
ART. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy
may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the charge. As with a voidable marriage, there must be
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such a judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage
marriage void. before contracting the second marriage. Article 40 of
the Family Code states that x x x. The Code
In view of this provision, Domingo stressed that Commission believes that the parties to a marriage
a final judgment declaring such marriage void was should not be allowed to assume that their marriage
necessary. Verily, the Family Code is void, even if such is the fact, but must first secure
and Domingo affirm the earlier ruling a judicial declaration of nullity of their marriage
in Wiegel. Thus, a Civil Law authority and member before they should be allowed to marry again. x x x.
of the Civil Code Revision Commitee has observed:
In the instant case, petitioner contracted a
[Article 40] is also in line with the recent decisions of second marriage although there was yet no judicial
the Supreme Court that the marriage of a person declaration of nullity of his first marriage. In fact, he
may be null and void but there is need of a judicial instituted the Petition to have the first marriage
declaration of such fact before that person can marry declared void only after complainant had filed a
again; otherwise, the second marriage will also be letter-complaint charging him with bigamy. By
void (Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, Aug. 19/86, 143 SCRA contracting a second marriage while the first was still
499, Vda. De Consuegra v. GSIS, 37 SCRA subsisting, he committed the acts punishable under
315). This provision changes the old rule that where Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
a marriage is illegal and void from its performance, That he subsequently obtained a judicial
no judicial decree is necessary to establish its declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was
validity (People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 843; People v. immaterial. To repeat, the crime had already been
Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033).[20] consummated by then. Moreover, his view
effectively encourages delay in the prosecution of
In this light, the statutory mooring of the ruling bigamy cases; an accused could simply file a petition
in Mendoza and Aragon that there is no need for a to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the
judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage -- has pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in
been cast aside by Article 40 of the Family the criminal case. We cannot allow that.
Code. Such declaration is now necessary before
one can contract a second marriage. Absent that Under the circumstances of the present case,
he is guilty of the charge against him.

4
Damages At the pith of the controversy is the defense of
the absolute nullity of a previous marriage in an
indictment for bigamy. The majority opinion, penned
In her Memorandum, respondent prays that the by my esteemed brother, Mr. Justice Artemio V.
Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals Panganiban, enunciates that it is only a judicially
insofar as it denied her claim of damages and decreed prior void marriage which can constitute a
attorneys fees.[23] defense against the criminal charge.
Her prayer has no merit. She did not appeal the The civil law rule stated in Article 40 of the
ruling of the CA against her; hence, she cannot Family Code is a given but I have strong
obtain affirmative relief from this Court.[24] In any reservations on its application beyond what appears
event, we find no reason to reverse or set aside the to be its expressed context. The subject of the
pertinent ruling of the CA on this point, which we instant petition is a criminal prosecution, not a civil
quote hereunder: case, and the ponenciaaffirms the conviction of
petitioner Vincent Paul G. Mercado for bigamy.
We are convinced from the totality of the evidence
Article 40 of the Family code reads:
presented in this case that Consuelo Tan is not the
innocent victim that she claims to be; she was well
aware of the existence of the previous marriage ART. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage
when she contracted matrimony with Dr. may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
Mercado. The testimonies of the defense witnesses basis solely of a final judgment declaring such
prove this, and we find no reason to doubt said previous marriage void.
testimonies.
The phrase for purposes of remarriage is not at
xxxxxxxxx all insignificant. Void marriages, like void contracts,
are inexistent from the very beginning. It is only by
way of exception that the Family code requires a
Indeed, the claim of Consuelo Tan that she was not
judicial declaration of nullity of the previous marriage
aware of his previous marriage does not inspire
before a subsequent marriage is contracted; without
belief, especially as she had seen that Dr. Mercado
such declaration, the validity and the full legal
had two (2) children with him. We are convinced that
consequence of the subsequent marriage would
she took the plunge anyway, relying on the fact that
itself be in similar jeopardy under Article 53, in
the first wife would no longer return to Dr. Mercado,
relation to Article 52, of the Family
she being by then already living with another man.
Code. Parenthetically, I would daresay that the
necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity of a void
Consuelo Tan can therefore not claim damages in marriage for the purpose of remarriage should be
this case where she was fully conscious of the held to refer merely to cases where it can be said
consequences of her act. She should have known that a marriage, at least ostensibly, had taken
that she would suffer humiliation in the event the place. No such judicial declaration of nullity, in my
truth [would] come out, as it did in this case, ironically view, should still be deemed essential when the
because of her personal instigation. If there are marriage, for instance, is between persons of the
indeed damages caused to her reputation, they are same sex or when either or both parties had not at
of her own willful making.[25] all given consent to the marriage. Indeed, it is likely
that Article 40 of the Family Code has been meant
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the and intended to refer only to marriages declared void
assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against under the provisions of Articles 35, 36, 37, 38 and 53
petitioner. thereof.
SO ORDERED. In fine, the Family Code, I respectfully submit,
did not have the effect of overturning the rule in
Melo, (Chairman), Purisima, and Gonzaga-
criminal law and related jurisprudence. The Revised
Reyes, JJ., concur.
Penal Code expresses:
Vitug, J., see concurring and dissenting
opinion.
Art. 349. Bigamy.---The penalty of prision mayor
shall be imposed upon any person who shall
contract a second or subsequent marriage before
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION the former marriage has been legally
dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been
declared presumptively dead by means of a
VITUG, J.: judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

5
Surely, the foregoing provision contemplated an [7] Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 13th
existing, not void, prior marriage. Covered by article ed. (1993), p. 828.
349 would thus be, for instance, a voidable marriage, [8] Citing Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines:
it obviously being valid and subsisting until set aside
by a competent court. As early as People vs. Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. I, p. 265.
Aragon,1 this Court has underscored: [9]Reyes,The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 12th
ed. (1981), p. 907.9
xxx Our Revised Penal Code is of recent enactment [10] Domingo v. CA, 226 SCRA 572, September 17,
and had the rule enunciated in Spain and in
America requiring judicial declaration of nullity 1993, per Romero, J.
of ab initio void marriages been within the [11] 95 Phil. 845, September 28, 1954.
contemplation of the legislature, an express
[12] 100 Phil. 1033, February 28, 1957.
provision to that effect would or should have
been inserted in the law. In its absence, we are [13] 37 SCRA 315, 326, January 30, 1971, per
bound by said rule of strict interpretation.
Zaldivar, J. Emphasis supplied. See also
Gomez v. Lipana, 33 SCRA 615, June 30, 1970.
Unlike a voidable marriage which legally exists
[14] 122
SCRA 525,529, May 30, 1983; per Melencio-
until judicially annulled (and therefore not a defense
in bigamy if the second marriage were contracted Herrera, J. Emphasis supplied.
prior to the decree of annulment), the [15] 143
complete nullity, however, of a previously SCRA 499, August 19, 1986, per
Paras, J. Emphasis supplied.
contracted marriage, being a total nullity
and inexistent, should be capable of being [16] 145 SCRA 229, October 28, 1986.
independently raised by way of a defense in a
[17] 226 SCRA 572, September 17, 1993, per
criminal case for bigamy. I see no incongruence
between this rule in criminal law and that of the Romero, J, citing Sempio-Diy, Handbook of the
Family Code, and each may be applied within the Family Code of the Philippines, 1988, p. 46.
respective spheres of governance. [18] Supra, p. 579.
Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition. [19] People
v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845, 847,
September 28, 1954, per Paras, CJ. See also
People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033, 1034-1035,
February 28, 1957, per Labrador, J.
1 100 Phil. 1033. [20] Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of
the Philippines, 1995 ed., p. 56.
[21] 211 SCRA 6, 11, July 3, 1992, per curiam.
[1] Pennedby J. Salome A. Montoya, Division [22] Reyes,Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 13th ed.
chairman; with the concurrence of JJ Conchita (1993), p. 829. Emphasis supplied. Petitioner had
Carpio Morales and Bernardo P. Abesamis, cited the statement of Justice Reyes that if the first
members. marriage is void from the beginning, it is a defense
[2] RTC
in a bigamy charge. This statement, however,
Decision, pp. 16-17; rollo, pp. 136-137. This
appeared in the 1981 edition of Reyes book, before
was written by Judge Edgar G. Garvilles.
the enactment of the Family Code.
[3] CA Decision, pp. 2-4; rollo, pp. 45-47. [23] Respondents Memorandum, p. 16; rollo, p. 259.
[4] Ibid., p. 6; rollo, p. 13. [24] Lagandaon
v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 330,
[5] Thecase was deemed submitted for resolution on May 21, 1998; Dio v. Concepcion, 296 SCRA 579,
May 26, 2000, upon receipt by this Court of the OSG September 25, 1998.
Memorandum signed by Sol. Gen. Ricardo P. [25] CA Decision, pp. 7-9; rollo, pp. 50-52.
Galvez, Asst. Sol. Gen. Mariano M Martinez and Sol.
Jesus P. Castelo. Respondents Memorandum,
which was signed by Atty. Julius C. Baldado, was
received on November 11, 1999; while petitioners
Memorandum, signed by Attys. Bernard B. Lopez
and Maritoni Z. Liwanag, had been filed earlier on
September 30, 1999.
[6] Petitioners Memorandum, p. 5; rollo, p. 215.

6
337 SCRA 122 (391 Phil. 809) Civil Law Family
Code Void Marriages Need for Judicial
Declaration of Nullity Before Remarriage
Criminal Law Bigamy Elements
In April 1976, Dr. Vincent Mercado married Ma.
Thelma Oliva. But in June 1991, Mercado married a
second time. He married a certain Consuelo Tan.
In October 1992, Tan filed a bigamy case against
Mercado.
In November 1992, Mercado filed an action to have
his first marriage with Oliva be declared void ab
initio under Article 36 of the Family Code
(psychological incapacity).
In January 1993, the prosecutor filed a criminal
information for bigamy against Mercado.
In May 1993, Mercados marriage with Oliva was
declared void ab initio. Mercado now sought the
dismissal of the bigamy case filed against him. He
contended that since his first marriage was declared
void ab initio, there was no first marriage to speak of,
hence, his second marriage with Tan was actually
his first marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mercado is correct.
HELD: No. The elements of bigamy are as follows:
1. That the offender has been legally married;
2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved
or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according
to the Civil Code;
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent
marriage;
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all
the essential requisites for validity
All the elements are present when Mercado married
Tan. When he married Tan, his first marriage was
still subsisting and was not declared void. In fact,
Mercado only filed an action to declare his first
marriage void after Tan filed the bigamy case. By
then, the crime of bigamy had already been
consummated.
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, a judicial
declaration of nullity of a void previous marriage
must be obtained before a person can marry for a
subsequent time. Absent that declaration a person
who marries a second time shall be guilty of bigamy.