Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Manuel v. People

    Uploaded by

    Benjie Davila

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manuel v. People

    Uploaded by

    Benjie Davila
    1 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1 views2 pages

    Manuel v. People

    Uploaded by

    Benjie Davila

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Title: Manuel vs People of the Philippines, GR No.

    165842
    Posted: October 5, 2011 in Case Digests
    Tags: Bigamy
    EDUARDO P. MANUEL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
    G.R. No. 165842
    November 29, 2005
    FACTS:
    This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the 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. According
    to the former, Gaña was charged with estafa in 1975, subsequently imprisoned, and never seen again
    by Manuel after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when she 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. During their marriage, Gandalera
    discovered that Eduardo was, in fact, already married when he married her. She then filed a criminal
    case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latter's defense was 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 he had to go to court to seek nullification of his first marriage
    before marrying Tina. The Regional Trial Court ruled against him, sentencing him to imprisonment
    from 6 years and 10 months to ten years and an amount of P200,000.00 for moral damages.
    Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA, alleging that he was not criminally liable for bigamy because
    when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without malicious intent. The
    CA ruled against the petitioner but modified the RTC's decision. The imprisonment sentence was
    reduced to between 2 years, months, and 1 day up to ten years. The pecuniary reward for moral
    damages was affirmed.
    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error of law when it ruled that
    the 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 a reversible error of law when it affirmed
    the award of PHP 200,000.00 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 a
    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 court ruled against the petitioner.

    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,
    causing injury to the latter. The Court 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 PHP
    200,000.00 for moral damages to be just and reasonable.

    You might also like