Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > December 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2916 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE OROSA

007 Phil 247:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2916. December 29, 1906. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE OROSA, Defendant-Appellant.

L. Joaquin, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE; ILLEGAL MARRIAGE. — Held, That under the facts stated in the opinion the defendant was guilty of the crime of illegal marriage, and punishable under article 471 of the Penal Code. Section 58 of General Orders, No. 58, does not apply to an unlawful husband or wife.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


On the 16th of May, 1905, the defendant, Vicente Orosa, was charged by the provincial fiscal of Tayabas with the crime of illegal marriage (bigamy) in that he, on or about the 18th of April of the same year, being previously canonically married to one Laura Tenorio, and without such marriage having been lawfully dissolved, contracted a civil marriage with Gregoria Zaballero in the town of Lucena of the same province.

Proceedings having been instituted upon the said complaint, the court, in view of the result of the evidence introduced at the trial, entered judgment on the 9th of August, 1905, sentencing the said Vicente Orosa to eight years and one day’s imprisonment (prision mayor) with the costs of proceedings, from which said judgment the defendant appealed.

It was fully established at the trial of this case by parol and documentary proof that Vicente Orosa had been lawfully married on the 19th of July, 1897, to one Laura Tenorio, in the parish church of the town of Taal by a priest delegated by the regular parish priest of the said town in the presence of witnesses in accordance with the canonical laws then in force in these Islands; that Laura Tenorio, the lawful wife of the defendant was still alive on the 31st of July, 1905, when the trial of this case was commenced upon the aforesaid complaint; and that Vicente Orosa contracted a civil marriage with Gregoria Zaballero on the 18th of April, 1905, before the justice of the peace of the town of Lucena, Tayabas.

Article 471 of the Penal Code provides: "Any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage without the prior marriage being lawfully dissolved shall be punished with the penalty of prision mayor."cralaw virtua1aw library

For the purpose of showing defendant’s guilt under the above quoted article, the prosecution introduced in evidence the certificate marked "Exhibit E," appearing on page 62, to the effect that on the 19th of July, 1897, before the Rev. Jose Villalobos, duly authorized by the parish priest of the town of Taal, in the presence of the witnesses Antonio Panganiban and Nieves Orosa, the defendant, Vicente Orosa, and Laura Tenorio were married in accordance with the rites of the Catholic Church and with the formalities prescribed by the Council of Trent.

The aforesaid certificate, which contains a literal copy of the certificate of marriage appearing on page 29, book 21 of the register of marriages kept by the parish priest of the said town, is a public document and, as such, has the same value and the same efficacy as though the original certificate had been presented. It is stated in the said certificate that it is a literal copy of the original which appears on the page and in the book aforesaid of the register of marriages of that parish. The Rev. Cecilio Punsalan, who signed the certificate, states at the end thereof that the same is a true and correct copy of the original, and in a notarial act which appears on page 63 of the record he stated under oath in the presence of the notary and two witnesses on the 22d day of May, 1905, that the contents of the said certificate of marriage, as set out in his certificate, the same bearing the seal of the parish, is true. All of these facts go to show that the certificate introduced in evidence for the purpose of establishing the former marriage between the defendant and Laura Tenorio was genuine and authentic.

On the 19th of July, 1897, the date of the certificate of marriage, and prior to the 18th of December, 1899, the parochial registries of marriages, baptisms, and deaths were undoubtedly considered as official books and registers, and the certificates of marriages and deaths taken from those books were considered as public documents, provided such certificates were duly entered upon the said books, and the latter were kept by the parish priest in accordance with the provisions of the Council of Trent, provisions which had the force of law in Spain as per the royal cedula of the 12th of July, 1564, which was later embodied in Law 13, Title I, Book I of the Novisima Recopilacion.

Article 579 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force at the time of the marriage in question, and up to the 30th of September, 1901, provides in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The following are solemn public documents, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"6. Records or certified copies of records of births, marriages, and deaths, taken from the books thereof by parish priests or by persons in charge of the civil register."cralaw virtua1aw library

Canonical certificates, or certified copies thereof, duly authorized by the respective parish priests are still public documents, and may be used for the purpose of establishing the facts to which they relate, for there is no legal provision which has taken from the parochial books and the certificates therein recorded under the former legislation their nature as public documents.

The canonical certificates of marriage recorded in the parochial books prior to the 18th of December, 1899, when General Orders, No. 68, relating to marriage, was promulgated, continue to be considered as public, official documents; and the parish priests still have the legal custody of such books, no law having been enacted prohibiting them, as such custodians of the said books, from issuing certified copies of the entries contained therein like any other custodians of archives.

In all other respects the certificate, Exhibit E, has the same efficacy as the original certificate itself, according to section 299 of the Code of Civil Procedure; section 313 of which code, relating to proof of official documents, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Official documents may be proved, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"6. Official documents of any other class in the Philippine Islands, by the original, or by copy certified by the legal keeper thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 314 of the same code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An authorized public record of a private writing may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, certified by the legal keeper of the record."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the light of these legal provisions, and of the provisions of section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure above referred to, it is evident that the said certificate of marriage, Exhibit E, was drawn up and issued by the priest charged with the legal custody of the registers of marriage from which it was copied literally.

Aside from the indisputable probatory force of the said certificate of marriage, the marriage itself, performed in the parochial church of the town of Taal in the presence of a priest and witnesses in accordance with the canonical laws, was likewise established by the unanimous testimony of eyewitnesses to the said marriage. These witnesses were Julian Gracia, Nieves Orosa, the aunt of the defendant, Martin Maranilla, Mariano Holgado, and Laura Tenorio, the latter having introduced in evidence Exhibits A and B, two letters that her husband, the defendant, had written to her, naming her therein as his wife. Consequently it can not be denied that the crime charged in the complaint has been committed, and that the defendant, Vicente Orosa, has been fully proved to be responsible therefor, counsel for the defendant, who waived his right to introduce evidence in his defense, having admitted that the accused had contracted the second marriage with Gregoria Zaballero on the 18th of April, 1905, before the justice of the peace of the town of Lucena, Tayabas, a fact further established by a certificate of marriage marked "Exhibit D" appearing on page 56 of the record. Jose Barcelona, the justice of the peace who issued the said certificate and before whom, and in the presence of two witnesses, the marriage between Gregoria Zaballero and the defendant, Orosa, was performed, testified as to the authenticity of the said certificate.

Even discarding the testimony of the complaining witness, Laura Tenorio, there is sufficient evidence in the record as to the marriage of the defendant and herself, for in addition to the certificate of their marriage, we have the testimony of four witnesses who were present at the time and who testified as to the priest who performed the ceremony and the witnesses of the same, and other details connected therewith.

Section 58 of General Orders, No. 58, provides that, except with the consent of both, or except in cases of crime committed by one against the other, neither husband nor wife shall be a competent witness for or against the other in a criminal action or proceeding to which one or both shall be parties. It can not be contended that the crime in question was not committed by the defendant, Vicente Orosa, against his lawful wife, Laura Tenorio. Therefore, under the laws now in force, she was a competent witness in this case against her husband, the contention of the defendant to the contrary notwithstanding.

No aggravating or extenuating circumstances having attended the commission of the crime, the penalty provided in article 471 of the Penal Code should be imposed upon the defendant in its medium degree, as was done by the court below.

For the reasons hereinbefore stated, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be, and it is hereby, affirmed, with the costs of this instance. The defendant, Vicente Orosa, is however further sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed in article 61 of the Penal Code. After the expiration of ten days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the case be remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2242 December 1, 1906 - HOUSTON B. PAROT v. CARLOS GEMORA

    007 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-2530 December 3, 1906 - ORDER OF DOMINICANS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-2718 December 4, 1906 - JOSE EMETERIO GUEVARA v. HIPOLITO DE OCAMPO

    007 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 2800 December 4, 1906 - FRANK S. BOURNS v. D.M. CARMAN ET AL.

    007 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-2923 December 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PALMADRES

    007 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-3009 December 4, 1906 - FELICIDAD BUSTAMANTE v. CRISTOBAL BUSTAMANTE

    007 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3534 December 4, 1906 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2671 December 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO POBLETE

    007 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-2704 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-1952 December 6, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    007 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 - MATEO CARIÑO v. TINSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-2921 December 6, 1906 - LUCAS GONZALEZ v. ROSENDO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3022 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN LOZANO

    007 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3429 December 6, 1906 - CASTLE BROS. v. GO-JUNO

    007 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. L-2472 & 2473 December 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CORTES

    007 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2803 December 7, 1906 - DAMASA ALCALA v. FRANCISCO SALGADO

    007 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-2890 December 7, 1906 - VALENTINA PALMA v. JORGE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    007 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-2929 December 7, 1906 - FAUSTA BATARRA v. FRANCISCO MARCOS

    007 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. L-3006 December 7, 1906 - JOSE GONZALEZ v. AGUSTIN BAÑES

    007 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3062 December 7, 1906 - MARIA MAGALLANES v. TEODORA CAÑETA

    007 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3078 December 7, 1906 - FERNANDO PEREZ v. JUAN GARCIA BOSQUE

    007 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3495 December 7, 1906 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. JUDGE OF THE CFI FOR THE PROV. OF CEBU, ET AL.

    007 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2777 December 10, 1906 - MARIA CASAL v. EMILIO MORETA

    007 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-2532 December 11, 1906 - IN RE MACARIO ADRIOATICO

    007 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-2787 December 11, 1906 - CELSO DAYRIT v. GIL GONZALEZ

    007 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-3010 December 11, 1906 - JULIAN TUBUCON v. PETRONA DALISAY

    007 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3050 December 11, 1906 - LUIS SANTOS v. SILVESTRE DILAG

    007 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3117 December 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO ADRIATICO

    007 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-2766 December 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CABAMNGAN

    007 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-3094 December 12, 1906 - FRED SPARREVOHN v. EMIL M. BACHRACH

    007 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-2828 December 14, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SOLIS

    007 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-3204 December 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SALANATIN

    007 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2855 December 19, 1906 - FLEMING, ET AL. v. LORCHA "NUESTRA SRA. DEL CARMEN

    007 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-2757 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN LIM ALAN

    007 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-2908 December 20, 1906 - ANTONIO TORRES Y ROXAS, ET AL. v. RAMON B. GENATO (Intervenor)

    007 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3119 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO CAGAOAAN

    007 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-3093 December 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO MANABAT

    007 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2541 December 26, 1906 - IGNACIO ICAZA v. RICARDO FLORES

    007 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1999 December 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MANUEL

    007 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-2765 December 27, 1906 - JOSE DOLIENDO v. DOMINGO BIARNESA

    007 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-3249 December 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FLOR MATA

    007 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. L-2395 December 29, 1906 - DOROTEO CORTES v. DY-JIA AND DY-CHUANDING

    007 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-2825 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAUL A. WEEMS

    007 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-2916 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE OROSA

    007 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-2966 December 29, 1906 - NICOLAS CONCEPCION TAN TACO v. VICENTE GAY

    007 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3120 December 29, 1906 - BRYAN v. AMERICAN BANK

    007 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906 - MEYER HERMAN v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    007 Phil 259