People vs. Bustamante

A vice-mayor who is designated to act as mayor during the latter's leave of absence is vested with all the powers and duties of the office, including the authority to solemnize marriages under Article 56 of the Civil Code, and the distinction between "Acting Mayor" and "Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor" is immaterial for purposes of exercising the functions appurtenant to the office.

Federico Bustamante was charged with and convicted of bigamy in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The case required interpretation of Article 56 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which enumerates the persons authorized to solemnize marriages, in relation to the Revised Administrative Code provisions on the devolution of mayoral powers upon the vice-mayor. The appeal raised questions concerning the authority of a vice-mayor temporarily discharging the functions of mayor and the effect of a variance between the allegation in the information and the evidence regarding the solemnizing officer.

Federico Bustamante was united in wedlock to Maria Perez on August 9, 1954, before the Justice of the Peace of Binalonan, Pangasinan. A little over a year later, on September 16, 1955, he contracted a second marriage with Demetria Tibayan, solemnized before Vice-Mayor Francisco B. Nato of Mapandan, Pangasinan, who was then acting as mayor of the municipality. The first marriage was still subsisting at the time of the second. After the second marriage, Bustamante dwelt with Demetria and her parents for about a month, after which he returned to Calasiao, Pangasinan to live with his first wife, Maria Perez. In the course of her search for him, Demetria discovered from the Binalonan municipal authorities the previous marriage of Bustamante, which led to the filing of the bigamy charge.

At the time of the second marriage, Enrique Aquino and Francisco Nato were the duly elected mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, of the municipality of Mapandan, Pangasinan, having been elected in the elections of 1951. On September 16, 1955, Aquino went on leave of absence for one month, and the vice-mayor was designated by the mayor to take over the reins of municipal government during his absence. Nato was acting in this capacity when he performed the second marriage of Bustamante with Demetria Tibayan.

The information charged that the appellant contracted the second marriage before the Justice of the Peace of Mapandan, Pangasinan, while the marriage certificate and the testimonies of witnesses indicated clearly that it was performed by Francisco Nato, the vice-mayor acting as mayor. Bustamante did not testify in his behalf during the trial. The lower court admitted the evidence over counsel's objection and found the appellant guilty of bigamy, imposing an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor.

• Authority to Solemnize: Appellant contended that there could not have been a valid second marriage to speak of because Nato was merely acting as mayor when he celebrated the same, and was therefore without authority of law to do so, relying on Article 56 of the Civil Code which enumerates "Mayors of cities and municipalities" as persons authorized to solemnize marriages.
• Distinction Between Acting Mayor and Vice-Mayor Acting as Mayor: Appellant laid stress on the distinction made in Salaysay vs. Hon. Fred Ruiz Castro, et al. between "Acting Mayor" and "Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor," urging that while the former may solemnize marriages, the latter could not.
• Variance Between Information and Evidence: Appellant assigned as error the admission by the lower court of evidence showing the marriage was performed by Francisco Nato, notwithstanding that the information alleged it was solemnized before the Justice of the Peace of Mapandan.

• Authority of Vice-Mayor to Solemnize Marriages: Whether a vice-mayor acting as mayor during the elected mayor's leave of absence has authority to solemnize marriages under Article 56 of the Civil Code.
• Variance Between Information and Evidence: Whether the lower court committed reversible error in admitting evidence that the second marriage was performed by Vice-Mayor Nato when the information alleged it was solemnized before the Justice of the Peace.

• Authority of Vice-Mayor to Solemnize Marriages: Yes. When the vice-mayor properly assumes the powers and duties of the office of mayor, it is immaterial whether he is designated "Acting Mayor" or "Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor," for in both instances he discharges all duties and wields all powers appurtenant to the office, including the authority to solemnize marriages under Article 56(4) of the Civil Code.
• Variance Between Information and Evidence: No reversible error. The wrong averment was unsubstantial and immaterial; it matters not who solemnized the marriage, it being sufficient that the information alleges a second marriage was contracted while the first remained undissolved.

• Authority of Vice-Mayor to Solemnize Marriages: Article 56 of the Civil Code authorizes "Mayors of cities and municipalities" to solemnize marriages. When the issue involves the assumption of powers and duties of the office of the mayor by the vice-mayor, when proper, it is immaterial whether the vice-mayor is called "Acting Mayor" or "Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor," for in both instances he discharges all duties and wields the power appurtenant to said office, pursuant to Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code and as held in Laxamana vs. Baltazar. The case of Salaysay vs. Castro, cited by the appellant, was distinguished as revolving upon the interpretation of Section 27 of the Revised Election Code and involving a question of title to office, not the performance of functions by one temporarily vested with it. That case even concedes and recognizes the powers and duties of the mayor to devolve upon the vice-mayor whenever the latter is in an acting capacity. The word "acting," as held in Austria vs. Amante, when preceding the title of an office connotes merely the temporary character or nature of the same.
• Variance Between Information and Evidence: The information charged that the appellant contracted the second marriage before the Justice of the Peace of Mapandan, while the marriage certificate and witness testimonies showed it was performed by Francisco Nato. This variance was not reversible error. The wrong averment, if at all, was unsubstantial and immaterial and need not even have been alleged, for it matters not who solemnized the marriage; it is sufficient that the information charging bigamy alleges that a second marriage was contracted while the first still remained undissolved. The information, which properly stated the time and place of the second wedding, was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the crime imputed. Neither procedural prejudice nor error was committed by the lower court in finding the appellant guilty.

• Devolution of Mayoral Powers Upon the Vice-Mayor — When the vice-mayor properly assumes the powers and duties of the office of the mayor, he discharges all duties and wields all powers appurtenant to that office, including the authority to solemnize marriages under Article 56 of the Civil Code. The distinction between "Acting Mayor" and "Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor" is immaterial for purposes of exercising the functions of the office, as the word "acting" merely connotes the temporary character of the assumption of office. This doctrine is grounded on Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Immaterial Variance in Bigamy Information — In a prosecution for bigamy, it is not necessary to allege or prove who solemnized the second marriage; it is sufficient that the information alleges that a second marriage was contracted while the first marriage remained undissolved, and that it properly states the time and place of the second wedding sufficient to apprise the accused of the crime charged.

• "When the issue involves the assumption of powers and duties of the office of the mayor by the vice-mayor, when proper, it is immaterial whether it because the latter is the Acting Mayor or merely acting as Mayor, for in both instances, he discharges all the duties and wields the power appurtenant to said office." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the core issue of the vice-mayor's authority to solemnize marriages, establishing that the temporary assumption of mayoral functions carries with it all powers appurtenant to the office.

• "The wrong averment, if at all, was unsubstantial and immaterial that need not even be alleged, for it matters not who solemnized the marriage, it being sufficient that the information charging bigamy alleges that a second marriage was contracted while the first still remained undissolved." — This passage defines the doctrine on variance in bigamy informations, clarifying that the identity of the solemnizing officer is not an essential element that must be correctly alleged.

• Salaysay vs. Hon. Fred Ruiz Castro, et al., 98 Phil. 364 — Distinguished. Appellant relied on this case for the distinction between "Acting Mayor" and "Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor," but the Court held it inapplicable because it involved interpretation of Section 27 of the Revised Election Code and a question of title to office, not the performance of functions by one temporarily vested with the office. The Court noted that the case itself concedes the devolution of mayoral powers upon the vice-mayor in an acting capacity.
• Laxamana vs. Baltazar, 92 Phil. 32 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the vice-mayor, when acting as mayor, discharges all duties and wields all powers appurtenant to the office, pursuant to Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Austria vs. Amante, 79 Phil. 780 — Followed. Cited for the definition of the word "acting" as connoting merely the temporary character or nature of an office when preceding the title thereof.
• People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549 — Followed. Cited for the proper application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in imposing the penalty for bigamy.

• Article 56, Civil Code of the Philippines — Enumerates the persons authorized to solemnize marriages, including "Mayors of cities and municipalities" under paragraph (4). Applied to determine whether a vice-mayor acting as mayor falls within this category; the Court held that he does, as he wields all powers appurtenant to the office of mayor.
• Article 349, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for the crime of bigamy. Applied in imposing the indeterminate sentence upon the appellant.
• Section 2195, Revised Administrative Code — Governs the devolution of the powers and duties of the mayor upon the vice-mayor. Relied upon to establish that the vice-mayor, when properly assuming the mayor's functions, discharges all duties and wields all powers appurtenant to the office.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Requires the imposition of an indeterminate penalty, the maximum of which is properly imposed under the Code (the medium period of prision mayor, there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances) and the minimum within the range of the penalty next lower (prision correccional medium). Applied to affirm the penalty imposed by the lower court.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concurred.