G.R. No. L-5982
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOROTEO GAOIRAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
November 28, 1910

FACTS:
Doroteo Gaoiran was charged as a principal, and Juan Balicat and Gerarda Sahagun as accomplices, for bigamy under Article 471 of the Penal Code. Doroteo admitted to being lawfully married to Salvadora Batara on May 24, 1897, and subsequently to Maria Manuel on May 23, 1908. Balicat and Sahagun admitted witnessing the second marriage, knowing of Doroteo’s prior marriage. The appellants claimed that Salvadora Batara had been absent for over eight years, and despite diligent inquiries, they had no knowledge of her whereabouts or existence, believing her to be dead.

The trial court found all appellants guilty. Doroteo was sentenced to eight years and one day of prision mayor, while Balicat and Sahagun received two years four months and one day of prision correccional. On appeal, appellants argued that the trial court erred in allowing the defense to present its evidence before the prosecution (a procedure adopted without objection because the appellants admitted the second marriage but reserved the right to prove lack of knowledge of the first wife’s existence) and in finding that they knew Salvadora Batara’s whereabouts and existence.

Evidence showed that Salvadora Batara had lived in the same barrio as the parties for most of the period, residing with her mother. Furthermore, baptismal certificates confirmed she gave birth to two children in 1902 and 1904, baptized in the same town. Doroteo’s stated reason for the second marriage was his first wife living with another man and having children by him.

ISSUE:
1. Did the trial court err in permitting the defense to present its proofs before the prosecution, given no objection was raised during trial and no prejudice was shown?
2. Was Doroteo Gaoiran guilty of bigamy, and did he have knowledge of his first wife’s existence despite his claim of absence?
3. Were Juan Balicat and Gerarda Sahagun guilty as accomplices, merely by being present as “witnesses” to the second marriage?

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Doroteo Gaoiran but modified his penalty, and acquitted Juan Balicat and Gerarda Sahagun.

1. On the order of presentation of proofs: The Court held that the trial court did not err. The procedure was adopted without objection from the appellants and their counsel, and it did not prejudice their substantial rights. The appellants had admitted the fact of the second marriage, reserving only their right to prove lack of knowledge of the first wife’s existence.
2. On Doroteo Gaoiran’s guilt: The Court found Doroteo Gaoiran guilty of bigamy. The defense that he believed his first wife was dead was not established. The evidence overwhelmingly proved that Salvadora Batara was alive, resided in the same barrio, and had even given birth to two children during the period of her supposed absence. Doroteo’s reason for contracting the second marriage (his first wife living with another man) was not a legal justification to relieve him of criminal responsibility for bigamy. Applying Article 11 of the Penal Code as an extenuating circumstance, his sentence was reduced from eight years and one day of prision mayor to six years and one day of prision mayor.
3. On Juan Balicat and Gerarda Sahagun’s guilt as accomplices: The Court acquitted them. While they were present and knew of the prior marriage and Salvadora’s existence, the certificate of the justice of the peace only stated they were witnesses presenciales (actually present). There was no proof that they testified or declared before the justice of the peace that no impediment existed to the second marriage. Mere presence as an eyewitness or being present at the ceremony is not sufficient to establish guilt as an accomplice in bigamy.