[G.R. No. 159218.

March 30, 2004]

SALVADOR S. ABUNADO and ZENAIDA BIAS ABUNADO, petitioners,

vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Ponente: Santiago J.

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the
decision[1]of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 26135 which affirmed with
modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, San
Mateo, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 2803 convicting petitioner Salvador S.
Abunado of bigamy.
 
Facts: 

On September 18, 1967, peti ti oner Salvador married Narcisa Arceño.  In
1988 Narcisa left for Japan to work but returned to the Philippines in 1992
when she learned that her husband was having an extra-marital affair and has left
their home. Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon
Plato. She also discovered that on January 10, 1989 Salvador contracted a second
marriage with Zenaida Biñas. On January 19, 1995, an annulment case was filed
by Salvador against Narcisa. On May 18, 1995, a case for bigamy was filed
by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida. On May 18, 2001, the trial court
convicted petitioner Salvador Abunado of bigamy. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court.

Issue: 
Whether or not the peti ti on for annulment is a prejudicial questi on
to the proceedings in the bigamy case.
Held: 
No. 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. Petitioner’s assertion would only delay the prosecuti on of
bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply fi le a peti tion to
declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a
prejudicial question in the criminal case. The outcome of the civil case for
annulment of petitioner’s marriage to Narcisa had no bearing upon the
determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the criminal case for
bigamy. All that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. A
marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid unti l
declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if
peti tioner eventually obtained a declarati on that his fi rst marriage was
void ab initio, the point is both the first and the second marriage were subsisting
before the first marriage was annulled. The petition is denied.