People v. Biasbas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Macario Biasbas, was charged with bigamy for allegedly marrying Agustina Ramos on November 4, 1911, while his prior marriage to Juliana Rodriguez on May 14, 1904, remained undissolved. The complaint alleged the second marriage was contracted maliciously and criminally. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance found the defendant guilty of bigamy and sentenced him to eight years and one day of prision mayor, with accessory penalties and costs, reserving to the wives the right to annul the marriages. The defendant appealed the decision. The Petition: The defendant appealed, assigning as errors the court's failure to grant exemption under section 3 of General Orders, No. 68, and the court's finding that more than six years had not elapsed between October 14, 1904, and November 4, 1911.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant is exempt from responsibility for bigamy under section 3 of General Orders, No. 68. Whether the period of absence of the first wife was sufficient to validate the second marriage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the defendant guilty of bigamy. The sentence of imprisonment of eight years and one day of prision mayor, with accessory penalties and costs, was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of exemption from responsibility under section 3 of General Orders, No. 68: The Court held that the defendant failed to meet the conditions for exemption. Section 3 requires either the annulment or dissolution of the former marriage, or the absence of the former spouse for seven successive years under specific conditions. The evidence showed that the defendant and his first wife separated about six months after their marriage in 1904. He did not hear from her while he was in Benguet until October 1910. His parents informed him that his wife had left their house about two months after their separation, placing her whereabouts known to him until December 1904 or January 1905. The defendant's claim of making inquiries about his wife was unsubstantiated, as he failed to specify from whom he inquired and did not even contact her parents. His suspicion that she was dead was based solely on her absence, which is insufficient without due diligence. The first wife appeared as a witness, proving she was not dead. On the issue of the sufficiency of the period of absence: The Court found that even if the defendant had made diligent search, the seven-year period of absence had not elapsed before the second marriage. Counting from December 1904 or January 1905, when he last knew of his wife's whereabouts, until November 4, 1911, the date of the second marriage, the full seven successive years had not elapsed. The Court reiterated the principle from United States vs. Juan San Luis that a second marriage contracted while the first wife is living is illegal unless the first wife has been absent for seven years and her whereabouts are unknown or cannot be ascertained with due diligence. The defendant's failure to exercise due diligence and the insufficient period of absence led to the conclusion that he was guilty of bigamy.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of a former marriage is illegal and void from the beginning, unless the former marriage has been annulled or dissolved, or the former spouse was absent and not known to be living for seven successive years immediately preceding the subsequent marriage, or was generally reputed and believed to be dead. The accused must exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the former spouse, and the absence must be for the full period of seven years.