People v. Bustamante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Federico Bustamante was married to Maria Perez on August 9, 1954. Over a year later, on September 16, 1955, while the first marriage was still subsisting, he contracted a second marriage with Demetria Tibayan. The second marriage was solemnized by Francisco B. Nato, the Vice-Mayor of Mapandan, Pangasinan, who was then acting as Mayor during the Mayor's leave of absence. Bustamante lived with Demetria for about a month before returning to his first wife. Demetria later discovered the prior marriage. Procedural History: The defendant-appellant was charged with and convicted of bigamy by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The Petition: The defendant-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising questions of law, primarily concerning the authority of Francisco Nato to solemnize the second marriage.
Issue(s)
Whether Francisco Nato, as Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor, had the authority to solemnize the second marriage. Whether the information was defective due to an alleged misstatement regarding the solemnizing officer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the defendant-appellant for bigamy. The penalty imposed by the lower court, in accordance with the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of Francisco Nato to solemnize the second marriage: The Court held that it is immaterial whether the Vice-Mayor is designated as an "Acting Mayor" or is merely "acting as Mayor" when the issue involves the assumption of the powers and duties of the mayor's office. In both instances, the Vice-Mayor discharges all the duties and wields the power appurtenant to the office of the mayor. The Court distinguished the present case from Salaysay vs. Castro, which dealt with a question of title to office, whereas this case concerns the performance of functions by one temporarily vested with the authority. The Court cited Laxamana vs. Baltazar and Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code to support the principle that the powers of the Mayor devolve upon the Vice-Mayor when the latter is in an acting capacity. The word "acting" preceding an office title merely connotes its temporary nature, as held in Austria vs. Amante. On the alleged defect in the information: The Court found the alleged error in the information, which stated the second marriage was solemnized by the "Justice of the Peace" instead of Francisco Nato, to be unsubstantial and immaterial. The Court emphasized that it matters not who solemnized the marriage, as long as the information sufficiently alleges that a second marriage was contracted while the first marriage remained undissolved. The information, by properly stating the time and place of the second wedding, was deemed sufficient to apprise the defendant of the crime imputed to him. Therefore, no procedural prejudice or error was committed by the lower court in admitting the evidence and proceeding with the trial.
Main Doctrine
A vice-mayor who is acting as mayor, discharging the duties and wielding the powers appurtenant to the office, has the authority to solemnize marriages. An information for bigamy is sufficient if it alleges that a second marriage was contracted while the first still remained undissolved, regardless of minor inaccuracies in the description of the solemnizing officer.