Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 165842 November 29, 2005
EDUARDO P. MANUEL, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
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 Gaa 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 Gandaleras knowledge of Manuels 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 latters 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 RTCs decision.
Imprisonment was from 2 years, months and 1 day to ten years. Pecuniary reward for moral
damages was affirmed.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it ruled that
petitioners 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.

RULINGS:
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. The court rules against the
petitioner.
2. The Court rules that the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners
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.