GR 589; (August, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 589 : August 20, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FELIPE ISLA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Felipe Isla, was prosecuted for bigamy. It was admitted that he contracted a second marriage with Aleja Pascual on November 14, 1901, in the parish church of Tondo, Manila. Prior to this, on November 5, 1899, a Felipe Isla was married to Maria Hilario in the parish church of Santa Cruz, Manila. The defendant denied being the same Felipe Isla who contracted the first marriage. The prosecution presented evidence consisting of the testimony of Maria Hilario and the two witnesses to the 1899 marriage, Maximo Briseno and Alejandra de los Angeles, all of whom identified the defendant as the same Felipe Isla. The defendant admitted knowing Maria Hilario and that she lived with him as his mistress in 1899. A discrepancy arose from the marriage record of 1899, which stated that the Felipe Isla involved was the son of Valentin Isla and Maria Mandayag (both deceased), while the defendant claimed to be the son of Gabriel Isla and Petra de Leon. The trial court convicted the defendant of bigamy.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant is guilty of bigamy under Article 471 of the Penal Code.
RULING:
Yes, the defendant is guilty of bigamy. The Supreme Court held that the direct testimonial evidence sufficiently established the identity of the defendant as the Felipe Isla who married Maria Hilario in 1899, notwithstanding the error in the marriage record regarding his parentage. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that he should be convicted under Article 440 instead of Article 471 of the Penal Code. It explained that Article 440, which addressed a specific scenario involving mixed canonical and civil marriages under a Spanish law never in force in the Philippines, was inapplicable. Both marriages in this case were canonical and indissoluble, squarely falling under Article 471, which punishes bigamy. The Court cited its prior decision in United States v. Leoncio Cruz (December 13, 1901), which applied Article 471 even when the second marriage was celebrated under General Orders No. 68 (the civil marriage law promulgated by the U.S. Military Government). The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.