SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
I vote to grant pro hac vice the petition.
The prosecution was burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt the corpus delicti, namely, all the elements of the crime.[1] In this case, the prosecution adduced evidence that the petitioner contracted marriage with Hilda and during the subsistence of said marriage, he contracted a second marriage with the private respondent. However, the petitioner adduced in evidence the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. AU-885 before the court a quo rendered judgment convicting the petitioner of bigamy declaring null and void ab initio the petitioner’s marriage with the private respondent on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity. Since the second marriage is null and void ab initio, such marriage in contemplation of criminal law never existed and for that reason, one of the essential elements of bigamy has disappeared. To quote Groizard:
… El matrimonio entonces, en realidad, no existe, pierde toda fuerza en virtud del vicio intrinseco que lleva, y, por tanto, uno de los elementos del delito desaparece y la declaracion de inculpabilidad precede. Esto que es logico y llano en el terreno de los principios, no puede, sin embargo, admitirse sin ciertas restricciones en la practica. ...[2]
Whether or not the decision of the RTC declaring the second marriage null and void ab initio, is erroneous is beside the point. Neither the private respondent nor the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed the decision of the court. Entry of judgment was made of record before the court a quo rendered its decision. Hence, both the State and the private respondent are bound by said decision.