GR No 165842 - Manuel Vs People of The Philippines
GR No 165842 - Manuel Vs People of The Philippines
GR No 165842 - Manuel Vs People of The Philippines
com/2011/10/05/manuel-vs-people-of-the-
philippines-gr-no-165842/
FACTS:
This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime
of bigamy.
Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975,
who, according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned
and was never seen again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in
January 1996 when the latter was only 21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the
two got married through a civil wedding in Baguio City without Gandalera’s knowledge of
Manuel’s first marriage. In the course of their marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera
learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a
criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latter’s defense being that his
declaration of “single” in his marriage contract with Gandalera was done because he
believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid and that he did not know that he had
to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. The
Regional Trial Court ruled against him sentencing him of imprisonment of from 6 years and
10 months to ten years, and an amount 0f P200,000.00 for moral damages.
Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA where he alleged that he was not criminally liable
for bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and
without any malicious intent. The CA ruled against the petitioner but with modification on the
RTC’s decision. Imprisonment was from 2 years, months and 1 day to ten years. Pecuniary
reward for moral damages was affirmed.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it ruled that
petitioner’s wife cannot be legally presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code as
there was no judicial declaration of presumptive death as provided for under Article 41 of the
Family Code.
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it affirmed the
award of Php200,000.00 as moral damages as it has no basis in fact and in law.
HELD:
1. The petition is denied for lack of merit. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with
malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of
fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such
defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse
because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Where a
spouse is absent for the requisite period, the present spouse may contract a subsequent
marriage only after securing a judgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent
spouse to avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy; the present spouse will have to
adduce evidence that he had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. Such judgment is proof of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a
subsequent marriage; thus, even if the present spouse is later charged with bigamy if the
absentee spouse reappears, he cannot be convicted of the crime.
2. The Court rules that the petitioner’s collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and
after his marriage with the private complainant were willful, deliberate and with malice and
caused injury to the latter. The Court thus declares that the petitioner’s acts are against
public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals
and the interest and general welfare of society. Because the private complainant was an
innocent victim of the petitioner’s perfidy, she is not barred from claiming moral damages.
Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the Court finds the award of
P200,000.00 for moral damages to be just and reasonable.