Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > November 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 25706 November 2, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANUNCIACION ROSAL

049 Phil 509:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 25706. November 2, 1926. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANUNCIACION ROSAL (alias MARIA A. ROSAL), Defendant-Appellee.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellant.

Vicente Singson Pablo, B. Quitoriano and Fernando Gorospe for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ILLEGAL MARRIAGE UNDER PENAL CODE. — Having contracted another marriage before the lapse of the three hundred one days following her first husband’s death, a widow is prosecuted for a violation of article 476 of the Penal Code. She files a demurrer to the information on the ground that there is no crime because the said article of our Penal Code is not in force, inasmuch as title IV of the Civil Code, whose article 45 is penalty sanctioned by article 476 of the Penal Code, was suspended in the Philippine Islands. Held: That said article 476 of the Penal Code is in force and, therefore, the order of the lower court sustaining the demurrer must be revoked.

2. ID.; ID.; — That article 476 of the Penal Code is not contingent on the provisions of article 45 of the Civil Code concerning the prohibition on the widow to contract a second marriage during the period of three hundred one days immediately following her late husband’s decease, is clearly shown by the fact that said article 476 of the Penal Code was already in force in the Philippines before the Civil Code was promulgated; therefore, the suspension of a part of the Civil Code cannot legally affect the said provision of the Penal Code.

3. ID.; ID. — The purpose of the penal sanction established in article 476 of the Penal Code is to prevent doubtful paternity and therefore a marriage contracted in violation of its provisions is punishable The fact that General Orders No. 68, in its section 2, does not make a marriage illegal and void if contracted within the period prohibited by article 476 of the Penal Code, does not mean that this article has been repealed, for the reason that the sanction of the Penal Code does not declare such a marriage contracted by a widow either void or voidable, but that notwithstanding its validity, a widow who thus contracts marriage is criminally liable as committing an act in violation of the law.


D E C I S I O N


VILLAMOR, J. :


This is an appeal taken by the prosecution from another of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur sustaining a demurrer filed by the defense to the following complaint:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the said accused Anunciacion Rosal (alias Maria A. Rosal), having become the widow of Guillermo Rabe on June 29, 1925, did willfully, maliciously, illegally and criminally contract a second marriage with Justino Velasco on or about August 19, 1925, in the municipality of San Ildefonso, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippine Islands, before the lapse of 301 days from the death of her first husband Guillermo Rabe, i. e., from June 29, 1925 to August 19, 1925 on which latter date, as aforesaid, she contracted a second marriage with Justino Velasco. Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The demurrer is on the ground that the charge does not constitute a crime. The court, by order of February 26, 1926, sustained the contention of the defense and dismissed the case, with the costs de oficio. From this order the prosecuting attorney appealed to this court in accordance with section 44 of General Orders No. 58.

It is alleged in support of this demurrer that article of the Penal Code is the penal sanction of article 45 of the Civil Code; and Title 4 of the Civil Code, which includes article 45, having been suspended, said article 476 of the Penal Code is not applicable for lack of subject-matter.

As may be seen, the question submitted for our determination is whether or not article 476 of the Penal Code is in force.

First of all, it must be observed that the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands was published in the Gazette of Manila on March 13, 1887 and went into effect four months after its publication, while the Civil Code was published and became effective as a law in the Philippine Islands on December 8, 1889. It is true, as Viada says in his commentaries on the Penal Code, that article 476 of the Penal Code of Spain is a sanction of article 45, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code. It is also true that the legal effects of Title 4 of Book 1 of our Civil Code, which includes article 45 was suspended by order of Governor-General Weyler on December 1, 1889. But the indisputable fact remains that article 476 of the Penal Code was already in force in the Philippine Islands before the promulgation of the Civil Code which shows that said article is not dependent for its existence upon the provisions of the latter code. It thus results that the suspension of a part of the Civil Code cannot legally affect the provisions of the Penal Code under consideration. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the object of the penal sanction established in article 476 is as acknowledged by the trial court, to prevent doubtful paternity and therefore a marriage contracted in violation of its provisions is punishable. The fact that General Orders No. 68, in its second section, does not make a marriage illegal and void if contracted within the period by article 476 of the Penal Code, does not mean that this article has been repealed, for the reason that the sanction of the Penal Code does not declare such marriage contracted by a widow void or voidable; but that notwithstanding its validity, a widow who thus contracts marriage is criminally liable as committing an act in violation of the law.

On the other hand, the Code of Civil Procedure which went into effect on October 1, 1901, may be said to supply the proof that article 476 of the Penal Code, based, as it is, on a sound principle of public policy, is in force. Section 333, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the conclusive presumption that the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent, is indisputably presumed to be legitimate, if not born within the one hundred eighty days immediately succeeding the marriage, or after the expiration of three hundred days following its dissolution. Without the penal sanction of article 476 of the Penal Code such presumption might produce inconsistent effects Thus, a widow can contract a second marriage on the tenth day after becoming a widow and give birth to a child two hundred seventy-nine days after the second marriage. This child, having been born within three hundred days after the death of the first husband, might conclusively be presumed to be the legitimate child of the first husband; and, yet, for the very reason that it was born one hundred eighty days after the second marriage, the same child would unquestionably be presumed to be the legitimate child of the second husband. In order to avoid the possibility of such situation, it is necessary to apply article 476 of the Penal Code.

In the case of United States v. Dulay (10 Phil., 302), this court, although in an indirect manner, took occasion to express its opinion that article 476 of the Penal Code imposes a punishment upon a widow who marries before three hundred one days after the death of her husband, and that said prohibition is in harmony with other legal provisions and is intended to prevent confusion in connection with filiation and paternity inasmuch as the widow might have conceived and become pregnant by her late husband.

For the foregoing we are of the opinion, and so hold, that article 476 of the Penal Code is in force and therefore the order appealed from must be, as it is hereby, revoked and the record is ordered remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the law, with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, 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






November-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 25966 November 1, 1926 - MANUEL TORRES, ET AL. v. MARGARITA LOPEZ

    049 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 25706 November 2, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANUNCIACION ROSAL

    049 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 24084 November 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    048 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 24224 November 3, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON MAZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 25241 November 3, 1926 - HARRIE S. EVERETT, ET AL. v. ASIA BANKING CORP., ET AL.

    049 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 26008 November 4, 1926 - GREGORIO MONTINOLA v. MARIA PIEDAD VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 25795 November 6, 1926 - C. T. WILLIAMS v. TEOFULO SUÑER

    049 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 24914 November 6, 1926 - JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE v. ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR

    048 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 25888 November 6, 1926 - GERARDO GUSTILO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ

    049 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 25292 November 10, 1926 - HILADO & HILADO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROV. OF OCC. NEGROS

    049 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 25777 November 10, 1926 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CEBU v. PHIL. RAILWAY CO., ET AL.

    049 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. 26017 November 11, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANACIO JAGON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 25445 November 12, 1926 - SINGH v. JUAN SULSE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 563

  • G.R. Nos. 25642 & 25643 November 12, 1926 - BPI v. GABRIELA ANDREA R. DE COSTER, ET AL.

    049 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 26323 November 12, 1926 - AGAPITA VILLADOS, ET AL. v. EGMIDIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 25912 November 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENIGNO PALAMOS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 24794 November 17, 1926 - AURELIO CECILIO v. GABRIEL BELMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 26418 November 18, 1926 - AQUILINO CALVO, ET AL, v. Hon. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 26555 November 16, 1926 - BALDOMERO ROXAS, ET AL. v. Hon. MARIANO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 25920 November 17, 1926 - M.W. STAIGHT v. A.D. HASKELL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 26284 November 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL.

    049 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 26130 November 18, 1926 - PEDRO RIVERA, ET AL. v. Hon. C. CARBALLO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 23999 November 21, 1926 - GREGORIO ZAGALA v. EUSTACIO S. ILUSTRE

    048 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 25254 November 22, 1926 - Mons. ALFREDO VERZOSA v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 25726 November 22, 1926 - PANTALEON E. DEL ROSARIO v. RESTITUTO VILLEGAS

    049 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 24804 November 24, 1926 - LEANDRA MANLAPAS, ET AL. v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 25729 November 24, 1926 - BELGIAN CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES, INC. v. MAGALLANES PRESS INC., ET AL.

    049 Phil 647