People v. Ibañez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Platon Ibañez contracted a religious marriage with Maria Lopez on May 8, 1893, with whom he lived for nearly five years and had two children. Maria Lopez separated from Ibañez due to ill-treatment and returned to her parents. Ibañez moved to Bulacan and later to Manila. On January 9, 1907, while Maria Lopez was still alive, Ibañez contracted a second marriage with Vivencia B. Casiano in Manila before a Protestant minister. Procedural History: An assistant prosecuting attorney filed a complaint for illegal marriage against Ibañez. The trial court rendered judgment on September 1, 1908, sentencing the accused to eight years and six months of presidio mayor and costs. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The defendant-appellant appealed the judgment of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused committed the crime of illegal marriage. Whether the accused acted in good faith when contracting the second marriage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, sentencing the accused to eight years and six months of presidio mayor, with costs, and reserving to Vivencia B. Casiano the right to claim indemnity. The penalty was modified to prisión mayor in accordance with Article 471 of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accused committed the crime of illegal marriage: The Court found that Platon Ibañez contracted a second marriage on January 9, 1907, with Vivencia B. Casiano while his lawful wife, Maria Lopez, was still living. The first marriage, solemnized on May 8, 1893, had not been lawfully dissolved or annulled. The Court cited Article 471 of the Penal Code, which punishes any person who contracts a second or subsequent marriage without the prior marriage being lawfully dissolved with prision mayor. The Court emphasized that the impediment of "ligamen" prohibits a married person from contracting another union as long as the spouse is alive, and a violation thereof constitutes bigamy. On the issue of whether the accused acted in good faith when contracting the second marriage: The Court ruled that Ibañez did not act in good faith. The defense claimed he believed his wife was dead, but the Court found this assertion unsupported by evidence. The Court stated that Ibañez did not use due diligence to ascertain the truth of his wife's alleged death. He should have communicated with the relatives of the woman reported dead, as well as the parish priest and municipal secretary who keep records of burials. The Court noted that Maria Lopez was known and reputed as an honest woman in her pueblo, making it improbable that Ibañez could have remained ignorant of her whereabouts had he exercised ordinary diligence. Furthermore, the Court pointed to Ibañez's cedulas for 1905 and 1906, where he declared himself a widower in the former and single in the latter. These inconsistent declarations, attributed by the accused to a clerk, were deemed indicative of bad faith, as it was unlikely such errors would occur without his knowledge or instruction. The Court concluded that his claim of good faith was not acceptable.
Main Doctrine
A person who contracts a second marriage without the prior marriage being lawfully dissolved, and without using due diligence to ascertain the death of the former spouse, cannot claim good faith and is guilty of bigamy.