Diego v.
Castillo
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673.
August 11, 2004
DOCTRINE: Mistake of Fact; Mistake of Law
The court carefully distinguished between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the defense of good faith in a
bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a person, even a lay person from liability
People v. Bitdu, held that even if the accused, who had obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan custom,
honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage she was not committing any violation of the law, and
that she had no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act.
This Court further stated therein that with respect to the contention that the accused acted in good faith in
contracting the second marriage, believing that she had been validly divorced from her first husband, it is
sufficient to say that everyone is presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him from the consequences thereof.
FACTS:
1965, accused Lucena Escoto contracted marriage with Jorge de Perio, Jr.,
o In the marriage contract, the accused used and adopted the name Crescencia Escoto, with a civil status
of single;
1978, a “Decree of Divorce” purportedly issued to Jorge de Perio as petitioner by the Family District Court of
Harris County,Texas was decreed
o The marriage between Jorge and Crescencia was dissolved, and divorce was granted
1987, the same Crenscenia contracted marriage with herein complainant’s brother, Manuel P. Diego.
o The marriage contract shows that this time, the accused used and adopted the name Lucena Escoto,
again, with a civil status of single.
A case of BIGAMY was filed against Lucena Escoto
o Respondent Judge acquitted her on the ground of good faith on the part of the accused, that she acted
without any malicious intent.
o That based on evidence, Lucena Escoto had sufficient grounds to believe that her previous marriage to
Jorge de Perio had been validly dissolved by the divorce decree and that she was legally free to contract
the second marriage with Manuel P. Diego
Thus, the present case which is an administrative complaint was filed against RTC Judge Castillo for allegedly
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in a criminal case and/or rendering judgment in gross ignorance of the
law.
ISSUE: Whether there is a mistake of fact or mistake of law
WON Judge Castillo should be held administratively liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and/or gross
ignorance of the law [NO]
RULING:
MISTAKE OF FACT v. MISTAKE OF LAW
In People v. Bitdu, the Court carefully distinguished between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the
defense of good faith in a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a person, even a lay
person, from liability.
o Bitdu held that even if the accused, who had obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan custom,
honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage she was not committing any violation of the
law, and that she had no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act.
o This Court further stated therein that with respect to the contention that the accused acted in good
faith in contracting the second marriage, believing that she had been validly divorced from her first
husband, it is sufficient to say that everyone is presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does
not know that his act constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him from the consequences
thereof.
In People v. Schneckenburger, where it was held that the accused who secured a foreign divorce, and later
remarried in the Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce was valid, is liable for bigamy.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST JUDGE CASTILLO
the error committed by respondent Judge being gross and patent, the same constitutes ignorance of the law of a
nature sufficient to warrant disciplinary action.
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that respondent Judge be reprimanded with stern
warning of a more severe penalty in the future
The act of Judge Castillo was classified as gross ignorance of law as a serious charge
o the sanction on respondent Judge should be a fine in the amount of P10,000.
o with STERN WARNING
