G.R. No. L‑2916
FACTS
– Vicente Orosa was canonically married to Laura Tenorio on 19 July 1897, a marriage recorded in the parish register of Taal and later issued as a certified copy (Exhibit E).
– The lawful wife, Laura, was alive when the criminal complaint was filed (31 July 1905).
– On 18 April 1905 Orosa contracted a civil marriage with Gregoria Zaballero before the Justice of the Peace of Lucena; this second marriage was proved by its civil marriage certificate (Exhibit D).
– Orosa was charged with bigamy under Art. 471 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to eight years + one day of imprisonment (prisión mayor). He appealed, claiming (a) the canonical marriage certificate was not a proper proof of a prior marriage, and (b) his lawful wife could not testify against him.
ISSUE
1. Whether the canonical marriage certificate, a copy of a parish register entry, is admissible as a public document to prove the existence of the first marriage.
2. Whether the lawful wife, Laura Tenorio, is a competent witness in a criminal action against her husband.
3. Whether the facts established constitute bigamy punishable under Art. 471 of the Penal Code.
RULING
1. Admissibility of the canonical certificate Under the Code of Civil Procedure (Secs. 299, 313, 314) and Article 579, certified copies of parish registers kept before 18 December 1899 retain the character of solemn public documents. The certificate (Exhibit E) therefore enjoys the same evidentiary force as the original entry and is admissible.
2. Competence of the spouse as witness Section 58 of General Orders No. 58 allows a wife to testify against her husband when the crime is committed against her (i.e., bigamy). Consequently, Laura Tenorio’s testimony was competent.
3. Liability for bigamy The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Orosa was already lawfully married when he contracted a second marriage without a prior dissolution. The statutory penalty of prisión mayor under Art. 471, in its medium degree, was therefore proper.
The Supreme Court affirms the conviction and sentence of eight years + one day of imprisonment, imposes the accessory penalties of Art. 61 of the Penal Code, and orders costs of the appeal. The judgment of the trial court stands.