People v. San Luis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Juan San Luis (the accused) married Justina Aviner Santos in 1891 or 1892. While his first wife was still alive, he contracted a second marriage in January 1907 with Maria Bundoc. Procedural History: The accused was found guilty of illegal marriage and sentenced to nine years and one day of imprisonment with hard labor and to pay costs. The Appeal: The accused appealed the decision, alleging that his first wife had been absent for more than seven successive years, her whereabouts were unknown, and therefore, he could lawfully contract the second marriage under paragraph 2 of Section 3 of General Orders, No. 68.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused committed the crime of illegal marriage (bigamy). Whether the accused's first wife was "absent" for seven successive years within the meaning of General Orders, No. 68, such that his second marriage was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of illegal marriage. However, it modified the penalty by removing the "hard labor" component from the imprisonment, as the Penal Code did not prescribe it for the penalty imposed. The costs of the instance were assessed against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether the accused committed the crime of illegal marriage (bigamy). The accused contracted a second marriage in January 1907 with Maria Bundoc while his first wife, Justina Aviner Santos, whom he married in 1891 or 1892, was still alive. These facts were clearly proven. The accused's defense rested on the provision of General Orders, No. 68, which allows a subsequent marriage if the former spouse was absent for seven successive years and their whereabouts were unknown, or if the former spouse was generally reputed to be dead and believed to be so at the time of the second marriage. However, the evidence showed that the accused was the one who absented himself from Navotas, where his wife resided, around 1896 or 1897, to avoid arrest. His wife continued to live in Navotas and did not know his whereabouts, although she searched for him. Crucially, she was still residing in Navotas when the accused contracted the second marriage in January 1907. Therefore, the condition of absence of the former spouse as required by law was not met; rather, it was the accused who was absent. The accused's wife's whereabouts were known to him, as she remained in the place where he left her. On Issue 2: Whether the accused's first wife was "absent" for seven successive years within the meaning of General Orders, No. 68, such that his second marriage was valid. The Court found that the accused's first wife was not absent in the legal sense contemplated by General Orders, No. 68. The provision requires the absence of the spouse whose existence and whereabouts are unknown for seven successive years, creating a presumption of death. In this case, the accused was the one who was absent, and his wife's whereabouts were known to him because she remained in Navotas, the same town where he had left her eleven years prior. It would have been extremely easy for the accused to ascertain his wife's whereabouts by inquiring in Navotas, which was a short distance from Manila where he resided and remarried. Furthermore, the accused did not present any proof that his first wife was generally reputed to be dead or that he so believed at the time of contracting the second marriage. The accused's statement to the minister who solemnized the second marriage that he was a bachelor, as attested by an eyewitness, further demonstrated his bad faith. Consequently, the essential condition of absence of the consort, as defined by law, was lacking, rendering the second marriage illegal and void.
Main Doctrine
The crime of illegal marriage (bigamy) is committed when a person contracts a second marriage while a former marriage is still subsisting. The exception provided by law, which allows a subsequent marriage if the former spouse has been absent for seven successive years and their whereabouts are unknown, requires strict proof of such absence and lack of knowledge of the spouse's existence. The burden of proof rests on the accused to demonstrate that the conditions for this exception are met, including the absence of the former spouse and the belief in their death, or that their whereabouts were unknown for the statutory period.