TUNGOL v. FARISCAL AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES [G.R. No. 233512, February 26, 2026]

 CASE DIGEST

LAPIRA y TUNGOL v. FARISCAL AND PEOPLE 

[G.R. No. 233512, February 26, 2026]

THIRD DIVISION, CAGUIOA, J.

 

Bigamy; Article 349, Revised Penal Code; Void Ab Initio Marriage; Absence of a Marriage License; Pulido v. People; Collateral Attack on a Void Marriage; Presumption of Validity of a Marriage Certificate; Certification of the Local Civil Registrar; Strict Construction of Penal Statutes; Reasonable Doubt

 

In a prosecution for bigamy, an accused may raise the nullity of a prior or subsequent marriage as a defense without first securing a judicial declaration of absolute nullity — but only where that marriage is void ab initio; a merely voidable marriage remains valid and subsisting until annulled and cannot be collaterally attacked in the criminal action. Where the ground invoked is the absence of a marriage license, that absence must appear on the face of the marriage contract itself or, at the least, be established by a certification from the local civil registrar that no license was issued to or applied for by the parties, with a positive showing that the registrar's records for the relevant period are intact. Such a certification suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity and validity ordinarily accorded a marriage certificate as a public document. Once that presumption is overcome and the prosecution adduces no countervailing proof, reasonable doubt arises as to the existence of a valid prior marriage — an essential element of bigamy — and acquittal must follow, penal statutes being construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

 

On August 3, 2000, petitioner Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira y Tungol married Takahiko Sato, a Japanese national, in Meycauayan, Bulacan. 

On April 17, 2001, while the first marriage remained undissolved of record, Imelda contracted a second marriage with respondent Jimmy Fariscal in a civil ceremony in Guagua, Pampanga, solemnized by the Municipal Mayor. The couple had a child together. 

On May 15, 2008, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information for bigamy before the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, alleging that Imelda contracted the second marriage while the first was still valid and subsisting and had not been legally dissolved. 

In her defense Imelda presented: (a) a Certification dated January 14, 2009 from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite stating that it had no record of any application for a marriage license by Sato and herself, and that its marriage-license-application records for the year 2000 were intact and undamaged; (b) corroborating testimony of the Local Civil Registrar; and (c) her own testimony that she had signed only a blank sheet of bond paper, with neither the groom nor a solemnizing officer present. 

The Regional Trial Court, by Decision dated October 26, 2015, convicted her of bigamy, holding that absent a judicial declaration of nullity her first marriage was presumed valid and subsisting when she contracted the second. The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated January 16, 2017 and Resolution dated August 10, 2017, affirmed, applying the then-prevailing rule requiring a prior judicial declaration before a void-marriage defense could be raised. Imelda elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

 

 

Whether an accused in a bigamy case may raise the nullity of the first marriage as a defense without a prior judicial declaration of absolute nullity.

YES. Applying Pulido v. People, the Court held that parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio marriage in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. A void ab initio marriage produces no legal effect from the outset and may be treated as non-existent for this purpose. 

The rule is expressly limited to void marriages. A merely voidable marriage is considered valid and subsisting unless and until annulled, and cannot be raised as a defense absent an annulment decree.

 

 

Whether the doctrine in Pulido, promulgated in 2021, benefits an accused whose conviction and affirmance predate it.

YES. The Court accepted petitioner's submission that the Court En Banc's recent ruling in Pulido should be appreciated in her favor, and applied the Pulido framework to her case notwithstanding that the trial court convicted her in 2015 and the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2017. 

It is worth noting for research purposes that the decision does not contain a separate, express analysis of retroactivity — no discussion of why a doctrine announced after conviction reaches an earlier prosecution. The Court simply treats Pulido as the controlling and applicable rule, consistent with its restatement that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

 

 

Whether the absence of a marriage license may be proven by a local civil registrar's certification that no record of a license application exists.

YES. The Court held that the absence of a marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract or, at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such license was issued to the parties. Petitioner's certification from the Imus, Cavite civil registrar — stating that no record of a license application existed and that the office's records for the year 2000 were intact — complied with the governing evidentiary requirements, and together with the registrar's corroborating testimony sufficed as proof of the license's absence. 

The express finding that the records were intact matters: a bare “no record found” certification, without that assurance, invites the inference that the record was merely lost or destroyed.

 

 

Whether that proof overcame the presumption of validity accorded a marriage certificate as a public document.

YES. The Court acknowledged the presumption of regularity attaching to a marriage certificate as a public record, but held that petitioner had sufficiently rebutted the presumed regularity of the alleged marriage certificate through the registrar's certification and testimony — the prosecution having offered no countervailing proof of a duly issued license.

 

 

Whether the element of a valid and subsisting prior marriage was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

NO. With the presumption of validity rebutted and no other proof of a duly licensed first marriage on record, the Court held that there is reasonable doubt as to the existence of a prior marriage, which is one of the elements of bigamy. The prosecution therefore failed to establish an essential element, and the constitutional presumption of innocence required acquittal.

 

DISPOSITION: The Petition for Review on Certiorari was GRANTED. The Decision dated January 16, 2017 and Resolution dated August 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals were REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and petitioner Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira y Tungol was ACQUITTED of bigamy. Entry of judgment was ordered issued immediately. Inting, Gaerlan, Dimaampao and Singh, JJ., concurred; there were no separate opinions.


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT