People v. Joanino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Victoriano Joanino, was married to Hipolita Rosario on May 22, 1890. They lived together until 1896 or 1897, when the defendant was deported to Guam. He returned in 1901 or 1902 and found his wife cohabiting with Gregorio Malinit, with whom she had two children. Joanino initiated divorce proceedings in Pangasinan, which were granted. Subsequently, on May 9, 1908, he married Maria Roque, while Hipolita Rosario was still alive. Procedural History: The defendant was charged with bigamy, found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and sentenced to eight years and one day of prision mayor. He appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The defendant appealed the sentence, raising questions of fact regarding the sufficiency of the proof. He admitted the facts but attempted to justify his second marriage on the belief that a granted divorce permitted remarriage, citing cases he knew in Guam. However, he admitted being informed by the court that the divorce granted was merely a decree of separation from bed and board and did not permit remarriage.
Issue(s)
Whether the divorce granted to the defendant from his first wife dissolved the marriage vinculum, thereby permitting him to remarry. Whether the defendant's belief that a divorce allowed remarriage constitutes a valid defense against a charge of bigamy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the divorce granted to the defendant did not annul the marriage or dissolve the marriage vinculum, and therefore, his subsequent marriage constituted bigamy. The defendant's belief, even if honestly held, did not negate the criminal act as the law was clear.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the divorce dissolved the marriage vinculum: The Court held that under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands, specifically Law 3, Title 2, Partida 4, the granting of a divorce does not annul the marriage or dissolve the marriage vinculum. This law explicitly states that even if parties separate due to adultery or entering a religious order, the marriage is not dissolved on that ground. The Court reiterated its consistent holding in previous cases, such as Benedicto vs. De la Rama, that these provisions of the Partidas govern divorce, and the change of sovereignty did not alter the legal effect of a divorce decree. A divorce granted under the law merely effects a separation from bed and board, not a dissolution of the marital bond. On the issue of the defendant's belief as a defense: The Court found that the defendant's arguments and appeals to sympathy could not influence the decision when positive rules of law governed the case. While he claimed to have been informed that the divorce granted did not permit remarriage, he attempted to justify his second marriage based on his belief derived from cases in Guam. However, the Court emphasized that his arguments would only be proper for clemency from the executive department. The law was clear that the divorce obtained was a decree of separation only, and his belief that he could remarry was not a valid legal defense against the charge of bigamy, as he was explicitly informed of the nature of the divorce granted.
Main Doctrine
A decree of divorce, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands, does not annul the marriage or dissolve the marriage vinculum; it merely grants a separation from bed and board.