US vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. 375

[G.R. No. 504. September 16, 1902.
] where they had been previously living until some time

subsequent to July 12, 1900. On that day she was married
THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellant, v. in Manila by a Protestant clergyman to Ramon Martinez. Her
TOMASA DE LOS REYES, Defendant-Appellee. defense is that she honestly believed her first husband was
dead when she married Martinez.
Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellant.
It appears that the mother and some other relatives of
Miguel Torres, for Private Prosecutor. Gonzalez lived, after the separation, in the same house with
the defendant. Gonzalez testifies that the separation took
Alfredo Chicote, for Appellee. place in March, 1900, and that he also lived for some
months in the lower story of the same house, the defendant
SYLLABUS living in the upper story. He further testifies that after he
left this house and went to live elsewhere he visited his
1. CRIMINAL LAW; BIGAMY; INTENT. — A woman who relatives there nearly every day down to a few days before
marries a second time under a bona fide belief that her the trial, which took place in September, 1901. He says that
former spouse is dead is not guilty of bigamy. he often saw his wife at these times, supplying her with
means for her support through his relatives, but that he
2. ID.; ID.; CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. — It is criminal never spoke with her. A short time after her second
negligence to contract a second marriage within two years marriage the defendant moved away from the house and
of the reported death of the former spouse without the has since lived elsewhere.
exercise of a high degree of diligence in confirming such
report. The defendant testifies that she and Gonzalez had been
living together a year and two months when the separation
took place. That would fix the date of the separation in July,
DECISION 1898. She testifies that some time during the year following
the separation she was told by the mother of Gonzalez that
she had been informed that her son was dead, that
LADD, J. : thereupon prayers were said for his soul for nine nights, and
that she put on mourning and wore it a year. She says that
she contracted the second marriage with the consent of the
This is an appeal from the Court of First Instance of Manila, mother of Gonzalez, and believing that the information
taken by the complaining witness, Julian Gonzalez, from a which she had received from her as to the death of
judgment of acquittal, upon a complaint for bigamy under Gonzalez was true. The mother of Gonzalez died before the
article 471 of the Penal Code. trial.
The defendant was married to the complaining witness in There was some further evidence from other witnesses on
Manila, May 27, 1897. After living together in Manila for a both sides, but it was of such a character as to throw but
time they separated, the defendant remaining in the house little light upon the facts of the case. On the whole, we have
reached the conclusion, though not without some hesitation,
that the story told by the defendant is in the main more Applying the provisions of article 568 of the Penal Code, the
likely to be true than false, and that she probably did act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage, the
contract the second marriage under a bona fide belief that prior marriage not having been lawfully dissolved, being one
the first marriage had been dissolved by the death of which, if done with malice, would constitute a grave crime,
Gonzalez. the offense committed by the defendant is punishable by
arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional
We have recently held, in the United States v. Marcosa in its minimum degree. There being no aggravating
Peñalosa and Enrique Rodriguez, decided January 27, 1902, circumstance, and as we think the extenuating circumstance
that there can be no conviction under article 475 of the of article 11 of the Penal Code may properly be considered
Penal Code, where by reason of a mistake of fact the in this case, this penalty should be applied in its minimum
intention to commit the crime does not exist, and we think degree.
the same principle must apply to this case. The defendant
was therefore properly acquitted of the crime charged in the We therefore sentence the defendant to four months and
complaint. one day of arresto mayor and costs. The judgment of the
court below will be modified in accordance with this opinion.
We are, however, of the opinion that the defendant is So ordered.
chargeable with criminal negligence in contracting the
second marriage, and should have been convicted under Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Smith, Willard, and Mapa, JJ.,
article 568 of the Penal Code. (See G. O., No. 58, sec. 29.) concur.
It does not appear that she made any attempt to ascertain
for herself whether the information received by her mother-
in-law as to the death of Gonzalez was to be relied upon.
She never even saw or communicated directly in any way
with the persons who gave her mother-in-law this
information. Moreover, viewing the testimony in the light
most favorable to her, she waited less than two years after
hearing of the death of her husband before contracting the
second marriage. The diligence with which the law requires
the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with
the nature of the situation in which he is placed and with
the importance of the act which he is to perform. In a
matter so important to the good order of society as that in
question, where the consequences of a mistake are
necessarily so serious, nothing less than the highest degree
of diligence will satisfy the standard prescribed by the law.
We can not say that the defendant has acted with that
diligence in the present case.

US vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. 375

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

US vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. 375

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. 375

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 504. September 16, 1902.

] where they had been previously living until some time

You might also like