People v. Bitdu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Bitdu, was married to Halid in accordance with Mohammedan rites over twelve years prior. Approximately seven months before the case, she married Hajirol, also according to Mohammedan customs. The accused claimed her second marriage was valid because she had been divorced from Halid in accordance with Mohammedan customs before Datu Gavino Cuevas. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga found the accused guilty of bigamy. The accused appealed this decision. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in finding her guilty of bigamy and in ordering her confinement to the Philippine Training School. Her defense was that the divorce from her first husband was valid under Mohammedan customs, and even if not, she lacked criminal intent due to a good-faith belief in the divorce's validity.
Issue(s)
Whether the alleged divorce between the accused and her first husband, Halid, was valid according to Mohammedan customs. Whether a divorce obtained in accordance with Mohammedan customs is legally valid in the Philippine Islands, even if not in conformity with Act No. 2710. Whether the accused is guilty of bigamy, considering her belief that she had been validly divorced. Whether the accused's age and belief in the validity of the divorce should exempt her from criminal liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of bigamy. The proceedings were suspended, and the accused was ordered to be sent to the Philippine Training School in Mandaluyong until she reached the age of majority.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the divorce under Mohammedan customs: The Court noted that while the defense presented a witness stating divorce among Mohammedans may be obtained before a person agreed upon by the parties, the defense failed to prove that the specific divorce in question met the conditions prescribed by the Koran. The Court found the validity of this divorce under Mohammedan customs to be doubtful. On the legal validity of a divorce obtained under Mohammedan customs: Even assuming the divorce was valid under Mohammedan doctrines, the Court held that such a divorce cannot prevail against the Divorce Law of the Philippine Islands (Act No. 2710). Laws relating to marriage and its incidents are matters of public policy, and customs or religious doctrines cannot supersede statutory law. The Court cited that a divorce can only be granted by a court upon the grounds and formalities prescribed by statute. On the guilt of bigamy and criminal intent: The Court reiterated the principle that everyone is presumed to know the law. The accused's belief that she had been validly divorced, even if honest, does not exempt her from the consequences of violating the law. The Court distinguished this case from United States v. Enriquez, where the accused had a well-founded belief of his first wife's death, which constituted a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law. On the accused's age and belief: While the Court acknowledged the accused's youth (seventeen years of age) and her likely honest belief that she was not violating the law, this did not absolve her of criminal liability. The Court noted that the suggestion to recognize Moro divorces as a matter of public policy was a matter for the Legislature and the Governor-General to consider, not the Court.
Main Doctrine
A divorce obtained in the Philippine Islands must comply with the causes and conditions prescribed by Act No. 2710 (Divorce Law) to be legally valid. Customs and religious doctrines, including those of Mohammedans, cannot supersede statutory law concerning marriage and divorce, as these relate to public policy. Ignorance of the law does not exempt one from its consequences.