Practice question
In a bigamy trial, competent evidence establishes that the first purported marriage was void from the beginning for a genuine independent defect. The accused had not obtained a separate nullity judgment before the second marriage. Under Pulido, is the absence of a prior separate decree alone enough to forbid that criminal defense?
- Yes, Article 40 conclusively supplies every bigamy element.
- No; the void-first-marriage defense may be established in the criminal case, while Article 40 remains relevant for remarriage.
- Yes, because no evidence may rebut a marriage certificate.
- No, because anyone may lawfully remarry without observing Article 40.
- Yes, unless the prosecutor consents.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 348–350.
- Pulido v People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021, en banc main decision, bigamy and void marriages: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jul2021/gr_220149_2021.html
- Genio v People, G.R. No. 261666, January 24, 2024, main decision, marriage requisites and criminal proof: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jan2024/gr_261666_2024.html
- RA 10655, repeal of RPC Article 351: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2015/ra_10655_2015.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.