FACTS:
Platon Ibañez contracted a religious marriage with Maria Lopez on May 8, 1893, in Hagonoy, Bulacan. They lived together for nearly five years and had two children. Maria Lopez later separated from Ibañez due to alleged ill-treatment and returned to her parents in Hagonoy, while Ibañez moved to Manila. On January 9, 1907, while Maria Lopez was still alive, Ibañez contracted a second marriage with Vivencia B. Casiano before a Protestant minister in Manila. An assistant prosecuting attorney filed a complaint against Ibañez for contracting an illegal marriage (bigamy). The lower court convicted Ibañez, sentencing him to eight years and six months of presidio mayor. Ibañez appealed, claiming he acted in good faith, believing his first wife, Maria Lopez, was already dead. The prosecution presented both marriage certificates and pointed to inconsistencies in Ibañez‘s cedulas (appearing as “widower” in 1905 and “single” in 1906) as evidence of bad faith.

ISSUE:
Did Platon Ibañez commit the crime of illegal marriage (bigamy) despite his claim of good faith, believing his first wife was dead?

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed Platon Ibañez‘s conviction for illegal marriage.

The Court held that Ibañez committed the crime of bigamy under Article 471 of the Penal Code because he contracted a second marriage without the prior one being lawfully dissolved, and his first wife was demonstrably still living. His defense of good faith was rejected because:
1. He failed to exercise due and necessary diligence to ascertain with certainty whether his lawful wife, Maria Lopez, was still living or dead. He should have communicated with her relatives, the parish priest, or the municipal secretary in Hagonoy, who kept records of burials.
2. Maria Lopez was well-known and residing in Hagonoy, making it impossible to believe that Ibañez, had he employed common and ordinary diligence, could have remained ignorant of her whereabouts or that of his child.
3. The changes in his cedulas (from “widower” in 1905 to “single” in 1906) indicated bad faith and an awareness that his lawful wife was still living, as such discrepancies could only have occurred at his request or upon his indication.
4. His second marriage was illegal and null under General Orders, No. 68, as his first marriage was not dissolved, and his first wife was not “positively absent” (she was alive).

The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, adjusting the penalty to prisión mayor and reserving the right for Vivencia B. Casiano to claim an indemnity.