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 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.
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.
The court ruled 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.