VICTORIA S. JARILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 164435, 29 September 2009, THIRD DIVISION (Peralta, J.

) Victoria Jarillo, petitioner, and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding ceremony in Taguig, Rizal in 1974. Both newlyweds celebrated a second wedding, this time a church ceremony, in 1975 in San Carlos City, Pangasinan. Out of the union, the spouses bore a daughter. Jarillo, however, contracted a subsequent marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy celebrated through a civil ceremony. Thereafter, Jarillo and Uy exchanged marital vows in a church wedding in Manila. In 1999, Uy filed a civil case for annulment against Jarillo. On the basis of the foregoing, Jarillo was charged with Bigamy before the RTC. Parenthetically, Jarillo filed a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage against Alocillo in 2000. The trial court rendered the assailed decision, holding Jarillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy. Jarillo posits, as defenses, that her marriage to Alocillo were null and void because Alocillo was allegedly still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at the time of the celebration of their marriage, that her marriages to Alocillo and Uy were both null and void for lack of a marriage license, and that the action had prescribed, since Uy knew about her marriage to Alocillo. On Appeal, the CA confirmed the ruling of the trial court. In the meantime, the RTC where Jarillo filed a civil case against Alocillo rendered judgement declaring Jarillos marriage to Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of Alocillos psychological incapacity. Jarillo, in her motion for reconsideration, invoked the ruling of the trial court as a ground for the reversal of her conviction. In a Resolution by the CA, the latter denied reconsideration. ISSUE: Whether or not Jarillo can be convicted of the crime of bigamy HELD: Petitioners conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioners two marriages to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, petitioners marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent second marriage, petitioners marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioners marriage tojurisdiction, was deemed valid and subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioners marriage to Uy make any difference. As held in Tenebro, [s]ince a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. x x x A plain reading of [Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code], therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.