GR L 4438; (March, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4438
March 7, 1908
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JACINTO SUNGA AND CLARA BAUTISTA, defendants. CLARA BAUTISTA, appellant.
FACTS:
On October 30, 1901, Clara Bautista contracted a marriage with Santiago Story Chua-Ge. While this previous marriage was still undissolved, Clara Bautista contracted a second, canonical marriage with Jacinto Sunga on August 4, 1904. For this act, she was convicted of the crime of illegal marriage and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor with accessory penalties. Clara Bautista appealed this judgment.
During the trial, Jacinto Sunga was excluded, as he did not contract a second marriage (meaning, the illegality stemmed from Clara Bautista’s existing marriage). Clara Bautista claimed she was ignorant of the importance and consequences of her act in appearing with Story Chua-Ge before the minister who married them. A defense was also presented asserting that Story Chua-Ge had died; however, this claim was made 40 days after the second marriage, and there was no evidence that his death occurred before the second marriage. In fact, Clara Bautista herself stated that Story Chua-Ge had taken their child from her when she was sent to Bilibid Prison, implying he was alive even after the second marriage. The trial was held twice, the second being a consequence of Clara Bautista’s appeal.
ISSUE:
1. Was Clara Bautista correctly convicted of the crime of illegal marriage?
2. Does Clara Bautista’s claim of ignorance regarding the importance of her first marriage palliate the crime?
3. Was the first marriage with Santiago Story Chua-Ge still subsisting when Clara Bautista contracted her second marriage?
4. Did the second trial constitute double jeopardy?
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
1. Clara Bautista was correctly convicted of illegal marriage. The prosecution sufficiently proved, through eye-witness testimony and verified marriage certificates, that she contracted a second marriage on August 4, 1904, while her first marriage, contracted on October 30, 1901, was still undissolved.
2. Her declaration of ignorance regarding the importance and consequences of her first marriage did not palliate the crime.
3. There was no evidence whatsoever that her first husband, Santiago Story Chua-Ge, had died before the second marriage was contracted. The defense alleging his death was raised 40 days after the second marriage, and Clara Bautista’s own statement indicated he was alive even after her conviction. Thus, her first marriage was legally subsisting at the time of her second marriage.
4. The fact that the trial was held twice did not constitute double jeopardy, as the second trial was a direct consequence of the appeal interposed by Clara Bautista herself.
The Court upheld the imposed penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor, finding it to be in the minimum degree and in accordance with the law, with the mitigating circumstance of Article 11 (lack of instruction) having been properly considered in her favor.