G.R. No. 504, September 16, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant, vs. TOMASA DE LOS REYES, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
The defendant, Tomasa de los Reyes, was married to Julian Gonzalez on May 27, 1897, in Manila. They later separated. On July 12, 1900, the defendant contracted a second marriage with Ramon Martinez before a Protestant clergyman. She was charged with the crime of bigamy under Article 471 of the Penal Code. Her defense was that she entered into the second marriage under a bona fide belief that her first husband was already dead. She testified that after the separation, the mother of Gonzalez informed her that Gonzalez had died, leading her to hold prayers, wear mourning, and eventually remarry with the consent of her mother-in-law. Gonzalez, however, testified that he continued to live in the same house and later visited his relatives there regularly, even providing support for the defendant, though they did not speak directly. The trial court acquitted the defendant of bigamy. The complaining witness, Julian Gonzalez, appealed the acquittal.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant should be convicted of bigamy, or if her bona fide belief in the death of her first husband constitutes a valid defense, and whether she may be held liable for a lesser offense.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal for the crime of bigamy. The Court found that the defendant’s story was credible and that she contracted the second marriage under a bona fide belief that her first husband was dead. Following the principle established in United States vs. Peñalosa, a conviction for bigamy requires criminal intent (dolo), which is negated by an honest mistake of fact. Therefore, the element of malice required for bigamy was absent.

However, the Court found the defendant criminally negligent for failing to exercise the highest degree of diligence in verifying the reported death of her first husband before remarrying. She relied solely on hearsay from her mother-in-law without any direct verification and remarried less than two years after hearing the news. This negligence made her liable under Article 568 of the Penal Code for acts which, if done with malice, would constitute a grave felony.

Applying Article 568, and considering the extenuating circumstance of Article 11 (lack of instruction), the Court modified the judgment and sentenced the defendant to four months and one day of arresto mayor, with costs.