The sole issue in this case is whether or not good faith in mistake of fact is a valid defense against bigamy.

To answer that question, let us first define the necessary terms. Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines defines marriage as special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by the Family Code. Article 2-3 lists down the essential and formal requisites of marriage while Article 4 states that the absence of any of the requisites will render a marriage void ab initio. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code requires the following elements to be present in cases of bigamy: 1. Offender has been legally married 2. Offender contracts a subsequent marriage 3. Offender contracts subsequent marriage without the legal dissolution of the previous marriage or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of final judgment in the proper proceedings. 4. Subsequent marriage has all the essential and formal requisites for validity In the case at bar, our client got married to current husband in 2002 and he now accuses her of bigamy claiming that their marriage was contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage between our client and her 1st boyfriend in 1998. Our client claims that she just signed a simulated marriage contract on the boyfriends persuasion so that he can discourage another woman who he had impregnated from pursuing him. Said boyfriend then registered the simulated marriage contract without her knowledge, much less her consent. Current marriage was contracted in the firm belief that she had no legal impediment to marry. Article 3 of the Civil Code states that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therein. It is important to distinguish mistake of fact from mistake of law/ignorance of law. In the case of People vs. Bitdu, GR. L-38230, November 21, 1933, the Supreme Court carefully distinguished between mistake of fact, which could be used as a basis for the defense of good faith in a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a person, even a lay person, from liability. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code defines felony as an act or omission performed with deliberate intent. Bigamy is a felony which means that criminal intent is an essential requisite of bigamy. In the case at bar, good faith on our clients part is a valid defense against bigamy since there is no criminal intent. Ordinarily, if a subsequent marriage is contracted within the subsistence of a previous marriage without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment, the subsequent marriage is considered void ab initio unless the previous marriage been legally dissolved or subsequent marriage was contracted after the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of final judgment.

In the case on hand, the 1st marriage is not only void ab initio for the lack of consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer as stated in Article 2, and the absence of valid marriage ceremony as stipulated in Article 6 of the Family Code but it is also inexistent under Article 1409 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 1409 states that an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void ab initio and inexistent. The lack consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer as stated in Article 2, and the absence of valid marriage ceremony as stipulated in Article 6 of the Family Code renders the 1st marriage as void ab initio and its inexistence under Article 1409 of the Civil Code leads to the noncompliance with the 1st element of bigamy. In the case of Morigo vs. People of the Philippines, GR. 145226, February 6, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that bigamy requires that previous and subsequent marriages possess all the necessary elements for validity to allow bigamy to prosper. If the 1st marriage is null and void, it bears no legal effect. Applying the principle of retroactivity of marriages that are void ab initio, the marriage is deemed to have never happened at all. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also ruled that the mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of absolute nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage. In the case of Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, JR., GR. 201061, July 3, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that under Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage solemnized without a license, except those covered by Article 34 where no license is necessary, "shall be void from the beginning." In this case, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was solemnized without a license. It was duly established that no marriage license was issued to them and that Marriage License No. N-07568 did not match the marriage license numbers issued by the local civil registrar of Pasig City for the month of February 1982. The case clearly falls under Section 3 of Article 35 which made their marriage void ab initio. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was also non-existent. Applying the general rules on void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are "inexistent and void from the beginning." Borrowing from Moriga vs. People of the Philippines, GR. 145226, February 6, 2004 - The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. Under the circumstances of the present case, we held that petitioner has not committed bigamy. Further, we also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic.