G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005.

11/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 476 11/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 476
Manuel vs. People
tence of the first marriage. Viada avers that a third element of the
crime is that the second marriage must be entered into with
fraudulent intent (intencion fraudulente) which is an essential
element of a felony by dolo. On the other hand, Cuello Calon is of
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 461 the view that there are only two elements of bigamy: (1) the
existence of a marriage that has not been lawfully dissolved; and
Manuel vs. People
(2) the celebration of a second marriage. It does not matter
* whether the first marriage is void or voidable because such
G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005. marriages have juridical effects until lawfully dissolved by a court
of competent jurisdiction. As the Court ruled in Domingo v. Court
EDUARDO P. MANUEL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE of Appeals and Mercado v. Tan, under the Family Code of the
PHILIPPINES, respondent. Philippines, the judicial declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage is a defense.
Marriages; Husband and Wife; Criminal Law; Bigamy; The Same; Same; Same; Same; For one to be criminally liable for
reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil act and
the juridical tie of marriage established by law.—The reason why an evil intent—actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.—As
bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the gleaned from the Information in the RTC, the petitioner is
juridical tie of marriage established by law. The phrase “or before charged with bigamy, a felony by dolo (deceit). Article 3,
the absent spouse had been declared presumptively dead by paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is
means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings” was deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. Indeed, a
incorporated in the Revised Penal Code because the drafters of felony cannot exist without intent. Since a felony by dolo is
the law were of the impression that “in consonance with the civil classified as an intentional felony, it is deemed voluntary.
law which provides for the presumption of death after an absence Although the words “with malice” do not appear in Article 3 of the
of a number of years, the judicial declaration of presumed death Revised Penal Code, such phrase is included in the word
like annulment of marriage should be a justification for bigamy.” “voluntary.” Malice is a mental state or condition prompting the
doing of an overt act without legal excuse or justification from
Same; Same; Same; Same; Elements; Family Code;
which another suffers injury. When the act or omission defined by
Declaration of Nullity; Bigamy is consummated on the celebration
law as a felony is proved to have been done or committed by the
of the second or subsequent marriage; Under the Family Code, the
accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional. Indeed, it
judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is a defense.
is a legal presumption of law that every man intends the natural
—For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the prosecution is
or probable consequence of his voluntary act in the absence of
burdened to prove the felony: (a) he/she has been legally married;
proof to the contrary, and such presumption must prevail unless a
and (b) he/she contracts a subsequent marriage without the
reasonable doubt exists from a consideration of the whole
former marriage having been lawfully dissolved. The felony is
evidence. For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there
consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or
must be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil intent. Actus
subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential
requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsis- Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—
_______________
The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil
* SECOND DIVISION.
intent when he married the private complainant. As a general
rule, mistake of
463
462
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 463
Manuel vs. People

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/34
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social

fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution institution.” Marriage is a social institution of the highest
for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal importance. Public policy, good morals and the interest of society
intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because require that the marital relation should be surrounded with every
everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem safeguard and its severance only in the manner prescribed and
excusat. the causes specified by law. The laws regulating civil marriages
Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; One accused are necessary to serve the interest, safety, good order, comfort or
of bigamy has the burden of adducing in evidence a decision of a general welfare of the community and the parties can waive
competent court declaring the presumptive death of the first spouse nothing essential to the validity of the proceedings. A civil
as required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable
Article 41 of the Family Code; The phrase “or before the absent relationships over transient ones; it enhances the welfare of the
spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a community.
judgment rendered on the proceedings” in Article 349 of the Same; Same; Same; Same; In a real sense, there are three
Revised Penal Code was not an aggroupment of empty or useless parties to every civil marriage—two willing spouses and an
words.—It was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense approving State.—In a real sense, there are three parties to every
that when he married the private complainant in 1996, he was of civil marriage; two willing spouses and an approving State. On
the well-grounded belief that his first wife was already dead, as marriage, the parties assume new relations to each other and the
he had not heard from her for more than 20 years since 1975. He State touching nearly on every aspect of life and death. The
should have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court consequences of an invalid marriage to the parties, to innocent
declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as required by parties and to society, are so serious that the law may well take
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of means calculated to ensure the procurement of the most positive
the Family Code. Such judicial declaration also constitutes proof evidence of death of the first spouse or of the presumptive death
that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal of the absent spouse after the lapse of the period provided for
intent on his part when he married the private complainant and, under the law. One such means is the requirement of the
as a consequence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in such declaration by a competent court of the presumptive death of an
case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge his burden. The absent spouse as proof that the present spouse contracts a
phrase “or before the absent spouse has been declared subsequent marriage on a well-grounded belief of the death of the
presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered on the first spouse. Indeed, “men readily believe what they wish to be
proceedings” in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code was not an true,” is a maxim of the old jurists. To sustain a second marriage
aggroupment of empty or useless words. The requirement for a and to vacate a first because one of the parties believed the other
judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse is for the to be dead would make the existence of the marital relation
benefit of the spouse present, as protection from the pains and the determinable, not by certain extrinsic facts, easily capable of
consequences of a second marriage, precisely because he/she could forensic ascertainment and proof, but by the subjective condition
be charged and convicted of bigamy if the defense of good faith of individuals. Only with such proof can marriage be treated as so
based on mere testimony is found incredible. dissolved as to permit second marriages. Thus, Article 349 of the
Same; Same; Same; Same; The requirement of judicial Revised Penal Code has made the dissolution of marriage
declaration of presumptive death is also for the benefit of the State dependent not only upon the personal belief of parties, but upon
—the laws regulating civil marriages are necessary to serve the certain objective facts easily capable of accurate judicial
interest, safety, good order, comfort or general welfare of the cognizance, namely, a judgment of the presumptive death of the
community and the parties can waive nothing essential to the absent spouse.
validity of the proceedings.—The requirement of judicial Same; Same; Same; Same; Before the spouse present may
declaration is also for the benefit of the State. Under Article II, contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must institute summary
Section 12 of the Constitution, the “State shall pro-
464 465
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 465
Manuel vs. People Manuel vs. People

ceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the to Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in that, in a case where
absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance a spouse is absent for the requisite period, the present spouse
of the absentee spouse; The Court rejects petitioner’s contention may contract a subsequent marriage only after securing a
that the requirement of instituting a petition for declaration of judgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent spouse to
presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is designed avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy; the present spouse
merely to enable the spouse present to contract a valid second will have to adduce evidence that he had a well-founded belief
marriage and not for the acquittal of one charged with bigamy.— that the absent spouse was already dead. Such judgment is proof
With the effectivity of the Family Code, the period of seven years of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a
under the first paragraph of Article 390 of the Civil Code was subsequent marriage; thus, even if the present spouse is later
reduced to four consecutive years. Thus, before the spouse present charged with bigamy if the absentee spouse reappears, he cannot
may contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must institute be convicted of the crime.
summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive Same; Same; Same; Same; Damages; Requisites; Moral
death of the absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the damages may be awarded in favor of the offended party only in
reappearance of the absentee spouse. As explained by this Court criminal cases enumerated in Article 2219, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5
in Armas v. Calisterio: In contrast, under the 1988 Family Code, and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous cases.—Moral damages
in order that a subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
be considered valid, the following conditions must concur, viz.: (a) anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
The prior spouse of the contracting party must have been absent social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
for four consecutive years, or two years where there is danger of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they
death under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or
Code at the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse present has a omission. An award for moral damages requires the confluence of
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) the following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether
there is, unlike the old rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the
death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission factually
institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant
declaration. The last condition is consistent and in consonance is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant;
with the requirement of judicial intervention in subsequent and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the
marriages as so provided in Article 41, in relation to Article 40, of cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
the Family Code. The Court rejects petitioner’s contention that Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the offended party
the requirement of instituting a petition for declaration of only in criminal cases enumerated in Article 2219, paragraphs 1,
presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous cases.
designed merely to enable the spouse present to contract a valid
second marriage and not for the acquittal of one charged with Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; While bigamy is not one of
bigamy. Such provision was designed to harmonize civil law and those specifically mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code in
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and put to rest the which the offender may be ordered to pay moral damages to the
confusion spawned by the rulings of this Court and comments of private complainant/offended party, the guilty party is liable to the
eminent authorities on Criminal Law. offended party for moral damages under Article 2219 in relation to
Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.—The law does not intend
Same; Same; Same; Same; Family Code; The Committee
that moral damages should be awarded in all cases where the
tasked to prepare the Family Code proposed the amendments of
aggrieved party has suffered mental anguish, fright, moral
Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code to conform to Article 349 of
anxieties, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
the Revised Penal Code.—The Committee tasked to prepare the
social humiliation and similar injury arising out of an act or
Family Code proposed the amendments of Articles 390 and 391 of
omission of another, otherwise,
the Civil Code to conform
467
466
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 467

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Manuel vs. People
Manuel vs. People

there would not have been any reason for the inclusion of specific though they have actually suffered material and moral injury
acts in Article 2219 and analogous cases (which refer to those should vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number
cases bearing analogy or resemblance, corresponds to some others of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to
or resembling, in other respects, as in form, proportion, relation, prove for specifically in the statutes.” Whether or not the principle
etc.) Indeed, bigamy is not one of those specifically mentioned in of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under
Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which the offender may be Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code or other applicable
ordered to pay moral damages to the private provisions of law depends upon the circumstances of each case.
complainant/offended party. Nevertheless, the petitioner is liable Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The accused’s
to the private complainant for moral damages under Article 2219 collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and after his
in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. marriage with the private complainant were willful, deliberate,
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Abuse of Rights; Elements. and with malice and caused injury to the latter, and the fact that
—According to Article 19, “every person must, in the exercise of she did not sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an award
his rights and in the performance of his act with justice, give for moral damages.—In the present case, the petitioner courted
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” This the private complainant and proposed to marry her. He assured
provision contains what is commonly referred to as the principle her that he was single. He even brought his parents to the house
of abuse of rights, and sets certain standards which must be of the private complainant where he and his parents made the
observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the same assurance—that he was single. Thus, the private
performance of one’s duties. The standards are the following: act complainant agreed to marry the petitioner, who even stated in
with justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good the certificate of marriage that he was single. She lived with the
faith. The elements for abuse of rights are: (a) there is a legal petitioner and dutifully performed her duties as his wife,
right or duty; (b) exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent believing all the while that he was her lawful husband. For two
of prejudicing or injuring another. years or so until the petitioner heartlessly abandoned her, the
private complainant had no inkling that he was already married
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; When a right is
to another before they were married. Thus, the private
exercised in a manner which does not conform to the standards set
complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioner’s chicanery
forth in the said provision and results in damage to another, a
and heartless deception, the fraud consisting not of a single act
legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be
alone, but a continuous series of acts. Day by day, he maintained
responsible.—Article 20 speaks of the general sanctions of all
the appearance of being a lawful husband to the private
other provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own
complainant, who changed her status from a single woman to a
sanction. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not
married woman, lost the consortium, attributes and support of a
conform to the standards set forth in the said provision and
single man she could have married lawfully and endured mental
results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed
pain and humiliation, being bound to a man who it turned out
for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. If the provision does
was not her lawful husband. The Court rules that the petitioner’s
not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages
collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and after his
under either Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code would be
marriage with the private complainant were willful, deliberate
proper. Article 20 provides that “every person who, contrary to
and with malice and caused injury to the latter. That she did not
law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall
sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an award for moral
indemnify the latter for the same.” On the other hand, Article 21
damages.
provides that “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Because the private
public policy shall compensate the latter for damages.” The latter complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioner’s perfidy, she
provision is adopted to remedy “the countless gaps in the statutes is not barred from claiming moral damages.—Because the private
which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioner’s perfidy,
she is not
468
469

VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 469
Manuel vs. People
Manuel vs. People

barred from claiming moral damages. Besides, even Eduardo was charged with bigamy in an Information
considerations of public policy would not prevent her from filed on November 7, 2001, the accusatory portion of which
recovery. As held in Jekshewitz v. Groswald: Where a person is reads:
induced by the fraudulent representation of another to do an act “That on or about the 22nd day of April, 1996, in the City of
which, in consequence of such misrepresentation, he believes to be Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
neither illegal nor immoral, but which is in fact a criminal Court, the above-named accused EDUARDO P. MANUEL, being
offense, he has a right of action against the person so inducing then previously and legally married to RUBYLUS [GAÑA] and
him for damages sustained by him in consequence of his having without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then
done such act. Burrows v. Rhodes, [1899] 1 Q.B. 816. In Cooper v. and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second
Cooper, 147 Mass. 370, 17 N.E. 892, 9 Am. St. Rep. 721, the court marriage with TINA GANDALERA-MANUEL, herein
said that a false representation by the defendant that he was complainant, who does not know the existence of the first
divorced from his former wife, whereby the plaintiff was induced marriage of said EDUARDO P. MANUEL to Rubylus [Gaña].
to marry him, gave her a remedy in tort for deceit. It seems to CONTRARY TO LAW.”
3
have been assumed that the fact that she had unintentionally
violated the law or innocently committed a crime by cohabiting The prosecution adduced evidence that on July 28, 1975,
with him would be no bar to the action, but rather that it might Eduardo was married to Rubylus Gaña before Msgr.
be a ground for enhancing her damages. The injury to the plaintiff Feliciano Santos in Makati, which4 was then still a
was said to be in her being led by the promise to give the municipality of the Province of Rizal. He met the private
fellowship and assistance of a wife to one who was not her complainant Tina B. Gandalera in Dagupan City sometime
husband and to assume and act in a relation and condition that in January 1996. She stayed in Bonuan, Dagupan City for
proved to be false and ignominious. Damages for such an injury two days looking for a friend. Tina was then 21 years old, a
were held to be recoverable in Sherman v. Rawson, 102 Mass. 395 Computer Secretarial student, while Eduardo was 39.
and Kelley v. Riley, 106 Mass. 339, 343, 8 Am. Rep. 336. Afterwards, Eduardo went to Baguio City to visit her.
Eventually, as one thing led to another, they went to a
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the motel where, despite Tina’s resistance, Eduardo succeeded
Court of Appeals. in having his way with her. Eduardo proposed marriage on
several occasions, assuring her that he was single. Eduardo
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tina’s
Albert M. Rasalan for petitioner.
parents, and was assured by them that their son was still
The Solicitor General for the People.
single.
CALLEJO, SR., J.: Tina finally agreed to marry Eduardo sometime in the
first week of March 1996. They were married on April 22,
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the 1996
1
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
26877, _______________
2 Penned by Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan.

_______________
3 Records, p. 1.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate 4 Exhibit “B,” Records, p. 7.
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador,
471
concurring; Rollo, pp. 28-41.
470
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 471
Manuel vs. People
Manuel vs. People before Judge Antonio C. Reyes, the5 Presiding Judge of the
RTC of Baguio City, Branch 61. It appeared in their
2
affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of marriage contract that Eduardo was “single.”
Baguio City, Branch 3, convicting Eduardo P. Manuel of The couple was happy during the first three years of
bigamy in Criminal Case No. 19562-R. their married life. Through their joint efforts, they were
able to build their home in Cypress Point, Irisan, Baguio
City. However, starting 1999, Manuel started making years, as maximum, and directed to indemnify the private
himself scarce and went to their house only twice or thrice complainant Tina Gandalera the amount9 of P200,000.00 by
a year. Tina was jobless, and whenever
6
she asked money way of moral damages, plus costs of suit.
from Eduardo, he would slap her. Sometime in January The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to
2001, Eduardo took all his clothes, left, and did not return. prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of bigamy
Worse, he stopped giving financial support. under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. It declared
Sometime in August 2001, Tina became curious and that Eduardo’s belief, that his first marriage had been
made inquiries from the National Statistics Office (NSO) in dissolved because of his first wife’s 20-year absence, even if
Manila where she learned that Eduardo had been true, did not exculpate him from liability for10 bigamy. Citing
previously married. She7 secured an NSO-certified copy of the ruling of this Court in People v. Bitdu, the trial court
the marriage contract. She was so embarrassed and further ruled that even if the private complainant had
humiliated when she learned that Eduardo was in8 fact known that Eduardo had been previously married, the
already married when they exchanged their own vows. latter would still be criminally liable for bigamy.
For his part, Eduardo testified that he met Tina Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA. He alleged
sometime in 1995 in a bar where she worked as a Guest that he was not criminally liable for bigamy because when
Relations Officer (GRO). He fell in love with her and he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith
married her. He informed Tina of his previous marriage to and without any malicious intent. He maintained that at
Rubylus Gaña, but she nevertheless agreed to marry him. the time that he married the private complainant, he was
Their marital relationship was in order until this one time of the honest belief that his first marriage no longer
when he noticed that she had a “love-bite” on her neck. He subsisted. He insisted that conformably to Article 3 of the
then abandoned her. Eduardo further testified that he Revised Penal Code, there must be malice for one to be
declared he was “single” in his marriage contract with Tina criminally liable for a felony. He
because he believed in good faith that his first marriage
was invalid. He did not know that he had to go to court to _______________
seek for the nullification of his first marriage before
marrying Tina. 9 Records, pp. 111-116.
10 58 Phil. 817 (1933).
_______________ 473
5 Exhibit “A,” id., at p. 6.
6 TSN, April 23, 2002, p. 15. VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 473
7 Exhibit “B,” Records, p. 7.
Manuel vs. People
8 TSN, April 23, 2002, p. 15.
472 was not motivated by malice in marrying the private

complainant because he did so only out of his
overwhelming desire to have a fruitful marriage. He
posited that the trial court should have taken into account
Manuel vs. People Article 390 of the New Civil Code. To support his view, the
appellant11cited the rulings of this Court in United
12
States v.
Eduardo further claimed that he was only forced to marry Peñalosa and Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals.
his first wife because she threatened to commit suicide The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) averred that
unless he did so. Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 Eduardo’s defense of good faith and13reliance on the Court’s
and thereafter imprisoned. He visited her in jail after three ruling in United States v. Enriquez were misplaced; what
months and never saw her again. He insisted that he is applicable is Article 41 of the Family Code, which
married Tina believing that his first marriage was no amended Article 390 of the Civil 14 Code. Citing the ruling of
longer valid because he had not heard from Rubylus for this Court in Republic v. Nolasco, the OSG further posited
more than 20 years. that as provided in Article 41 of the Family Code, there is a
After trial, the court rendered judgment on July 2, 2002 need for a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the
finding Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. absent spouse to enable the present spouse to marry. Even
He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six assuming that the first marriage was void, the parties
(6) years and ten (10) months, as minimum, to ten (10) thereto should not be permitted to judge for themselves the

nullity of the marriage; the matter should be submitted to FIRST WIFE CANNOT BE LEGALLY PRESUMED DEAD
the proper court for resolution. Moreover, the OSG UNDER ARTICLE 390 OF THE CIVIL CODE AS THERE WAS
maintained, the private complainant’s knowledge of the NO JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH AS
first marriage would not afford any relief since bigamy is PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE FAMILY CODE.
an offense against the State and not just against the
private complainant. II
However, the OSG agreed with the appellant that the
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
penalty imposed by the trial court was erroneous and
ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE AWARD OF
sought the affirmance of the decision appealed from with
PHP200,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES AS IT HAS NO BASIS IN
modification. 18
FACT AND IN LAW.
On June 18, 2004, the CA rendered judgment affirming
the decision of the RTC with modification as to the penalty The petitioner maintains that the prosecution failed to
of the accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the second element of the felony, i.e., that the
prove all the elements of bigamy. Contrary to the marriage
contention of the appellant, Article 41 of the Family Code
should apply. Before
_______________
_______________ 15 G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000, 337 SCRA 122.

16 G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993, 226 SCRA 572.
11 1 Phil. 109 (1902). 17 Rollo, p. 41.
12 G.R. No. 111656, March 20, 1996, 255 SCRA 202. 18 Rollo, pp. 14-15.
13 32 Phil. 202 (1915).
14 G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993, 220 SCRA 20. 475
474
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 475
Manuel vs. People
Manuel vs. People has not been legally dissolved or, in case his/her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead
Manuel could lawfully marry the private complainant, under the Civil Code. He avers that when he married
there should have been a judicial declaration of Gaña’s Gandalera in 1996, Gaña had been “absent” for 21 years
presumptive death as the absent spouse. The appellate 15 since 1975; under Article 390 of the Civil Code, she was
court cited the rulings of this Court16
in Mercado v. Tan presumed dead as a matter of law. He points out that,
and Domingo v. Court of Appeals to support its ruling. under the first paragraph of Article 390 of the Civil Code,
The dispositive portion of the decision reads: one who has been absent for seven years, whether or not
he/she is still alive, shall be presumed dead for all purposes
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Decision
except for succession, while the second paragraph refers to
promulgated on July 31, 2002 is hereby MODIFIED to reflect, as
the rule on legal presumption of death with respect to
it hereby reflects, that accused-appellant is sentenced to an
succession.
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one
The petitioner asserts that the presumptive death of the
(1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of
absent spouse arises by operation of law upon the
prision mayor as maximum. Said Decision is AFFIRMED in all
satisfaction of two requirements: the specified period and
other respects.
17 the present spouse’s reasonable belief that the absentee is
SO ORDERED.”
dead. He insists that he was able to prove that he had not
Eduardo, now the petitioner, filed the instant petition for heard from his first wife since 1975 and that he had no
review on certiorari, insisting that: knowledge of her whereabouts or whether she was still
alive; hence, under Article 41 of the Family Code, the
I presumptive death of Gaña had arisen by operation of law,
as the two requirements of Article 390 of the Civil Code are
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE present. The petitioner concludes that he should thus be
ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER’S acquitted of the crime of bigamy.
The petitioner insists that except for the period of incorporated in the Revised Penal Code because the
absences provided for in Article 390 of the Civil Code, the drafters of the law were of the impression that “in
rule therein on legal presumptions remains valid and consonance with the civil law which provides for the
effective. Nowhere under Article 390 of the Civil Code does presumption of death after an absence of a number of
it require that there must first be a judicial declaration of
death before the rule on presumptive death would apply. _______________
He further asserts that contrary to the rulings of the trial
and appellate courts, the requirement of a judicial 19 Supra, at note 14.
declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the 20 CUELLO CALON, DERECHO PENAL REFORMADO, VOL. V, p.
Family Code is only a requirement for the validity of the 627.
subsequent or second marriage. The petitioner, likewise,
477
avers that the trial court and the CA erred in awarding
moral damages in favor of the private complainant. The
private complainant was a “GRO” before he VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 477
476 Manuel vs. People
years, the judicial declaration of presumed death like

annulment21
of marriage should be a justification for
Manuel vs. People bigamy.”
For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the
married her, and even knew that he was already married. prosecution is burdened to prove the felony: (a) he/she has
He genuinely loved and took care of her and gave her been legally married; and (b) he/she contracts a subsequent
financial support. He also pointed out that she had an marriage without the former marriage having been
illicit relationship with a lover whom she brought to their lawfully dissolved. The felony is consummated on the
house. celebration
22
of the second marriage or subsequent
In its comment on the petition, the OSG maintains that marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy
the decision of the CA affirming the petitioner’s conviction that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential
is in accord with the law, jurisprudence and the evidence requirements, would be valid23 were it not for the
on record. To bolster its claim, the OSG cited the ruling of subsistence of the first marriage. Viada avers that a third
19
this Court in Republic v. Nolasco. element of the crime is that the second marriage must be
The petition is denied for lack of merit. entered into with fraudulent intent (intencion fraudulente)
24
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and which is an essential element of a felony by dolo. On the
penalizes bigamy, reads: other hand, Cuello Calon is of the view that there are only
two elements of bigamy: (1) the existence of a marriage
Art. 349. Bigamy.—The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed that has not been lawfully dissolved; and (2) the celebration
upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent of a second marriage. It does not matter whether the first
marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, marriage is void or voidable because such marriages have
or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead juridical effects until 25lawfully dissolved by a court of
by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. competent jurisdiction. As the Court ruled in Domingo v.
The provision was taken from Article 486 of the Spanish
Penal Code, to wit: _______________
21 AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, VOL. III, p. 497 (1988 ed.)
El que contrajere Segundo o ulterior matrimonio sin hallarse
(emphasis supplied).
legítimamente disuelto el anterior, será castigado con la pena de
22 Id., at p. 634.
prision mayor. x x x
23 People v. Dumpo, 62 Phil. 247 (1935).
The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to 24 . . . “Tres son los elementos esenciales del mismo; el vinculo
preserve and ensure20
the juridical tie of marriage matrimonial anterior, la celebración de nuevo matrimonio antes de la
established by law. The phrase “or before the absent disolución de ese vinculo anterior, y por ultimo, la intención fraudulenta,
spouse had been declared presumptively dead by means of que constituye la criminalidad misma del acto. Este ultimo elemento no lo
a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings” was consigna el articulo, por hallarse indudablemente embebido en ese

principio anterior a todos los Codigos, e inscrito en el frontispicio del 479

nuestro (Art. I.), que donde no hay voluntad, no hay delito. x x x” (CODIGO
PENAL REFORMADO, TOMO 5, 560) Groizard is of the view that bigamy
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 479
may be committed by culpa.(id., at p. 558).
25 DERECHO PENAL REFORMADO, VOL. 1, pp. 629-630. Manuel vs. People
478
Article 3 of the Revised Penal 31
Code, such phrase is
included in the word “voluntary.”
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Malice is a mental state or condition prompting the
doing of an overt act without legal excuse or justification
Manuel vs. People 32
from which another suffers injury. When the act or
26 27 omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have been
Court of Appeals and Mercado v. Tan, under the Family done or committed by 33the accused, the law presumes it to
Code of the Philippines, the judicial declaration of nullity of have been intentional. Indeed, it is a legal presumption of
a previous marriage is a defense. law that every man intends the natural or probable
In his commentary on the Revised Penal Code, Albert is consequence of his voluntary act in the absence of proof to
of the same view as Viada and declared that there are the contrary, and such presumption must prevail unless a
three (3) elements of bigamy: (1) an undissolved marriage; reasonable doubt exists from a consideration of the whole
(2) a new marriage; and (3) 28
fraudulent intention evidence.
34
constituting the felony of the act. He explained that: For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there
. . . This last element is not stated in Article 349, because it is must be a confluence of both an evil act 35
and an evil intent.
undoubtedly incorporated in the principle antedating all codes, Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
and, constituting one of the landmarks of our Penal Code, that, In the present case, the prosecution proved that the
where there is no willfulness there is no crime. There is no petitioner was married to Gaña in 1975, and such marriage
willfulness if the subject believes that the former marriage has was not judicially declared
36
a nullity; hence, the marriage is
been dissolved; and this must be supported by very strong presumed to subsist. The prosecution also proved that the
evidence, and if this be produced, the act shall be deemed not to petitioner married the private complainant in 1996, long
constitute a crime. Thus, a person who contracts a second after the effectivity of the Family Code.
marriage in the reasonable and well-founded belief that his first The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or
wife is dead, because of the many years that have elapsed since he evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a
has had any news of her whereabouts, in spite of his endeavors to general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is
find her, cannot be deemed guilty of the crime of bigamy, because a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such
there is no fraudulent intent which is one of the essential defense negates malice or criminal intent. However,
elements of the crime.
29
ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is
presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem
As gleaned from the Information in the RTC, the petitioner excusat.
is charged with bigamy, a felony by dolo (deceit). Article 3,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there _______________
is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.
Indeed, a felony cannot exist without intent. Since a felony 31 United States v. Peñalosa, 1 Phil. 109.
by dolo is 30classified as an intentional felony, it is deemed 32 WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW, VOLUME 1, p. 302.
voluntary. Although the words “with malice” do not 33 People v. Vogel, 46 Cal.2d. 798; 299 P.2d 850 (1956).
appear in 34 WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW, VOL. 1, p. 203.
35 Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111656, March 20, 1996,
255 SCRA 202.
_______________
36 Marbella-Bobbis vs. Bobbis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000, 336
26 Supra, at note 16. SCRA 747.
27 Supra, at note 15.
480
28 ALBERT, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, p. 819 (1932 ed.).
29 Id.
30 L.B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, BOOK ONE, p. 37 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(13th ed. 1993).
Manuel vs. People relationships over transient ones; it enhances the welfare
of the community.
It was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that In a real sense, there are three parties to every civil
when he married the private complainant in 1996, he was marriage; two willing spouses and an approving State. On
of the well-grounded belief that his first wife was already marriage, the parties assume new relations to each other
dead, as he had not heard from her for more than 20 years and the State touching nearly on every aspect of life and
since 1975. He should have adduced in evidence a decision death. The consequences of an invalid marriage to the
of a competent court declaring the presumptive death of his parties, to innocent parties and to society, are so serious
first wife as required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal that the law may well take means calculated to ensure the
Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such procurement of the most positive evidence of death of the
judicial declaration also constitutes proof that the first spouse
38
or of the presumptive death of the absent
petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal spouse after the lapse of the period provided for under the
intent on his part when he married the private law. One such means is the requirement of the declaration
complainant and, as a consequence, he could not be held by a competent court of the presumptive death of an absent
guilty of bigamy in such case. The petitioner, however, spouse as proof that the present spouse contracts a
failed to discharge his burden. subsequent marriage on a well-grounded belief of the death
The phrase “or before the absent spouse has been of the first spouse. Indeed, “men readily believe what they
declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment wish to be true,” is a maxim of the old jurists. To sustain a
rendered on the proceedings” in Article 349 of the Revised second marriage and to vacate a first because one of the
Penal Code was not an aggroupment of empty or useless parties believed the other to be dead would make the
words. The requirement for a judgment of the presumptive existence of the marital relation determinable, not by
death of the absent spouse is for the benefit of the spouse certain extrinsic facts, easily capable of forensic
present, as protection from the pains and the consequences ascertainment39
and proof, but by the subjective condition of
of a second marriage, precisely because he/she could be individuals. Only with such proof can marriage be40treated
charged and convicted of bigamy if the defense of good faith as so dissolved as to permit second marriages. Thus,
based on mere testimony is found incredible. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code has made the
The requirement of judicial declaration is also for the dissolution of marriage dependent not only upon the
benefit of the State. Under Article II, Section 12 of the personal belief of parties, but upon certain objective
41
facts
Constitution, the “State shall protect and strengthen the easily capable of accurate judicial cognizance, namely, a
family as a basic autonomous social institution.” Marriage judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse.
is a social institution of the highest importance. Public
policy, good morals and the interest of society require that _______________
the marital relation should be surrounded with every
38 Geisselman v. Geisselman, 134 Md. 453, 107 A. 185 (1919).
safeguard and its severance only37 in the manner prescribed
39 WHARTON CRIMINAL LAW, VOL. 2, 2377 (12th ed., 1932).
and the causes specified by law. The laws regulating civil
40 Id.
marriages are necessary to serve the interest, safety, good
41 Id.
order, comfort or general welfare of the community and the
parties can waive nothing 482
_______________
37 People v. Bitdu, supra, at note 10.
Manuel vs. People
481
The petitioner’s sole reliance on Article 390 of the Civil
Code as basis for his acquittal for bigamy is misplaced.
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 481
Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code provide—
Manuel vs. People
Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not, the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead
essential to the validity of the proceedings. A civil marriage
for all purposes, except for those of succession.
anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable
The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five for the declaration
45
of the presumptive death of the
years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the
opened. reappearance of the absentee46 spouse. As explained by this
Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all Court in Armas v. Calisterio:
purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs:
“In contrast, under the 1988 Family Code, in order that a
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally be considered
aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for valid, the following conditions must concur, viz.: (a) The prior
four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane; spouse of the contracting party must have been absent for four
(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, consecutive years, or two years where there is danger of death
and has been missing for four years; under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil Code at
the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse present has a well-
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c)
circumstances and his existence has not been known for
there is, unlike the old rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive
four years.
death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can
The presumption of death of the spouse who had been institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that
absent for seven years, it being unknown whether or not declaration. The last condition is consistent and in consonance
the absentee still lives, is created by law and arises without with the requirement of judicial intervention in subsequent
42
any necessity of judicial declaration. However, Article 41 marriages as so provided in Article 41, in relation to Article 40, of
of the Family Code, which amended the foregoing rules on the Family Code.”
presumptive death, reads:
_______________
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless 43 Emphasis supplied.
before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior 44 The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209) took effect on August 4,
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse 1988.
present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was 45 Navarro v. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996, 259
already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of SCRA 129.
death under the 46 G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 201.
484
_______________
42 TOLENTINO, THE NEW CIVIL CODE, VOL. I, p. 690.

VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 483 The Court rejects petitioner’s contention that the
requirement of instituting a petition for declaration of
Manuel vs. People
presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is
designed merely to enable the spouse present to contract a
circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil
valid second marriage and not for the acquittal of one
Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
charged with bigamy. Such provision was designed to
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under
harmonize civil law and Article 349 of the Revised Penal
the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a
Code, and put to rest the confusion spawned by the rulings
summary proceeding as provided in this Court for the declaration
of this Court and comments of eminent authorities on
of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect
43 Criminal Law.
of reappearance of the absent spouse.
As early47as March 6, 1937, this Court ruled in Jones v.
44
With the effectivity of the Family Code, the period of Hortiguela that, for purposes of the marriage law, it is not
seven years under the first paragraph of Article 390 of the necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an
Civil Code was reduced to four consecutive years. Thus, absentee before the spouse present may contract a
before the spouse present may contract a subsequent subsequent marriage. It held that the declaration of
marriage, he or she must institute summary proceedings absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil
Code has for its sole purpose the taking of the necessary
precautions for the administration of the estate of the of a person after an absence of seven years. The Court
absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, reiterated its rulings in Szatraw, Lukban and Jones.
the law only requires that the former spouse had been Former Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino was of the view
absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second that “the provision of Article 349 or “before the absent
marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of
former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is a judgment reached in the proper proceedings” is erroneous
generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present 48
so and should be considered as not written. He opined that
believes at the time
49
of the celebration of the marriage. In such provision presupposes that, if the prior marriage has
In Re Szatraw, the Court declared that a judicial not been legally dissolved and the absent first spouse has
declaration that a person is presumptively dead, because not been declared presumptively dead in a proper court
he or she had been unheard from in seven years, being a proceedings, the subsequent marriage is bigamous.
53
He
presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, maintains that the supposition is not true. A second
cannot reach the stage of finality or become final; and that marriage is bigamous only when the circumstances in
proof of actual death of the person presumed dead being paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 83 of
unheard from in seven years, would have to be made in
another proceeding to have such particular fact finally _______________
determined. The Court ruled that if a judicial decree
declaring a person presumptively dead because he or she 50 Id., at p. 463.
had not been heard from in 51 98 Phil. 574 (1956).
52 107 Phil. 381 (1960).
53 AQUINO, REVISED PENAL CODE, VOL. III, p. 490.
_______________
486
47 64 Phil. 179 (1937).
48 Id., at p. 83.
49 81 Phil. 461 (1948). 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
54
the Civil Code are not present. Former Senator Ambrosio
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 485
Padilla was, likewise, of the view that Article 349 seems to
Manuel vs. People require judicial decree of dissolution or judicial declaration
of absence but even with such decree, a second marriage in
seven years cannot become final and executory even after good faith will not constitute bigamy. He posits that a
the lapse of the reglementary period within which an second marriage, if not illegal, 55even if it be annullable,
appeal may be taken, for such presumption is still should not give rise to bigamy. Former Justice Luis B.
disputable and remains subject to contrary proof, then a Reyes, on the other hand, was of the view that in the case
petition for such a declaration is useless, unnecessary, of an absent spouse who could not yet be presumed dead
superfluous and of no benefit to the petitioner. The Court according to the Civil Code, the spouse present cannot be
stated that it should not waste its valuable time and 50
be charged and convicted
56
of bigamy in case he/she contracts a
made to perform a superfluous and meaningless act. The second marriage.
Court also took note that a petition for a declaration of the The Committee tasked to prepare the Family Code
presumptive death of an absent spouse may even be made proposed the amendments of Articles 390 and 391 of the
in collusion with the other spouse. 51
Civil Code to conform to Article 349 of the Revised Penal
In Lukban v. Republic of the Philippines, the Court Code, in that, in a case where a spouse is absent for the
declared that the words “proper proceedings” in Article 349 requisite period, the present spouse may contract a
of the Revised Penal Code can only refer to those subsequent marriage only after securing a judgment
authorized by law such as Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil declaring the presumptive death of the absent spouse to
Code which refer to the administration or settlement of the avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy; the present
estate of a 52deceased person. In Gue v. Republic of the spouse will have to adduce evidence that he had a well- 57
Philippines, the Court rejected the contention of the founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.
petitioner therein that, under Article 390 of the Civil Code, Such judgment is proof of the good faith of the present
the courts are authorized to declare the presumptive death spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage; thus, even if

the present spouse is later charged with bigamy if the According to Retired Supreme Court Justice Florenz D.
absentee spouse reappears, he cannot be convicted of the Regalado, an eminent authority on Criminal Law, in some
crime. As explained by former Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy: cases where an absentee spouse is believed to be dead,
there must be a judicial declaration of presumptive death,
. . . Such rulings, however, conflict with Art. 349 of the Revised which could
Penal Code providing that the present spouse must first ask for a
declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse in order not
_______________
to be guilty of bigamy in case he or she marries again.
58 HANDBOOK ON THE FAMILY CODE, pp. 48-49.
_______________ 59 THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED, pp. 62-
63 (1992 ed.).
54 Id., at p. 497.
55 PADILLA, COMMENTS ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE, VOL. 488
IV, p. 717-718.
56 THE REVISED PENAL CODE, 1981 ED., VOL. II, p. 906.
57 Republic v. Nolasco, supra, at note 19.
Manuel vs. People
487
then be made60
only in the proceedings for the settlement of
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 487 his estate. Before such declaration, it was held that the
remarriage 61of the other spouse is bigamous even if done in
Manuel vs. People
good faith. Justice Regalado opined that there were
contrary views because of the ruling in Jones and the
The above Article of the Family Code now clearly provides that for provisions of Article 83(2) of the Civil Code, which,
the purpose of the present spouse contracting a second marriage, however, appears to have been set to rest by Article 41 of
he or she must file a summary proceeding as provided in the Code the Family Code, “which requires a summary hearing for
for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee, the declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse
without prejudice to the latter’s reappearance. This provision is before the other spouse can remarry.”
intended to protect the present spouse from a criminal Under Article 238 of the Family Code, a petition for a
prosecution for bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code declaration of the presumptive death of an absent spouse
because with the judicial declaration that the missing spouses under Article 41 of the Family Code may be filed under
62
presumptively dead, the good faith of the present spouse in Articles 239 to 247 of the same Code.
58
contracting a second marriage is already established. On the second issue, the petitioner, likewise, faults the
trial court and the CA for awarding moral damages in favor
Of the same view is former Dean Ernesto L. Pineda (now
of the private complainant. The petitioner maintains that
Undersecretary of Justice) who wrote that things are now
moral damages may be awarded only in any of the cases
clarified. He says judicial declaration of presumptive death
provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, and bigamy is
is now authorized for purposes of remarriage. The present
not one of them. The petitioner asserts that the appellate
spouse must institute a summary proceeding for 63
court failed to apply its ruling in People v. Bondoc, where
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, where
an award of moral damages for bigamy was disallowed. In
the ordinary rules of procedure in trial will not be followed.
any case, the petitioner maintains, the private complainant
Affidavits will suffice, with possible clarificatory
failed to adduce evidence to prove moral damages.
examinations of affiants if the Judge finds it necessary for
The appellate court awarded moral damages to the
a full grasp of the facts. The judgment declaring an
private complainant on its finding that she adduced
absentee as presumptively dead is without prejudice to the
evidence to prove the same. The appellate court ruled that
effect of reappearance of the said absentee.
while bigamy is not included in those cases enumerated in
Dean Pineda further states that before, the weight of
Article 2219 of the Civil Code, it is not proscribed from
authority is that the clause “before the absent spouse has
awarding moral damages
been declared presumptively dead x x x” should be
disregarded because of Article 83, paragraph 3 of the Civil
Code. With the new law, there is a need to institute a _______________
summary proceeding for the declaration of the presumptive
59
death of the absentee, otherwise, there is bigamy.
60 REGALADO, CRIMINAL LAW CONSPECTUS, p. 633 (1st ed., 66 Id., at p. 266.
2000), citing Lukban v. Republic, supra.
490
61 Id., citing People v. Reyes, CA-G.R. No. 12107-R, June 30, 1955, and
People v. Malana, CA-G.R. No. 5347, January 30, 1940.
62 SEMPIO-DIY, HANDBOOK ON THE FAMILY CODE OF THE 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
PHILIPPINES, p. 358.
Manuel vs. People
63 CA-G.R. No. 22573-R, April 23, 1959.
489 paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous

cases, viz.:
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 489 “Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
Manuel vs. People analogous cases.
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

against the petitioner. The appellate court ruled that it is
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
not bound by the following ruling in People v. Bondoc:
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
. . . Pero si en dichos asuntos se adjudicaron daños, ello se debió (4) Adultery or concubinage;
indedublamente porque el articulo 2219 del Código Civil de
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
Filipinas autoriza la adjudicación de daños morales en los delitos
(6) Illegal search;
de estupro, rapto, violación, adulterio o concubinato, y otros actos
lascivos, sin incluir en esta enumeración el delito de bigamia. No (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
existe, por consiguiente, base legal para adjudicar aquí los daños (8) Malicious prosecution;
64
de P5,000.00 arriba mencionados. (9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29,
The OSG posits that the findings and ruling of the CA are
30, 32, 34 and 35.
based on the evidence and the law. The OSG, likewise,
avers that the CA was not bound by its ruling in People v.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused,
Rodeo.
referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral
The Court rules against the petitioner.
damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article in
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
the order named.
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, Thus, the law does not intend that moral damages should
moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate65 be awarded in all cases where the aggrieved party has
result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. An suffered mental anguish, fright, moral anxieties,
award for moral damages requires the confluence of the besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether social humiliation and similar injury arising out of an act
physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the or omission of another, otherwise, there would not have
claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission been 67any reason for the inclusion of specific acts in Article
factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of 2219 and analogous cases (which refer to those cases
the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury bearing analogy or resemblance, corresponds to some
sustained by the claimant; and fourth, the award of others or resembling, 68in other respects, as in form,
damages is predicated on any of the cases
66
stated in Article proportion, relation, etc.)
2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the offended
_______________
party only in criminal cases enumerated in Article 2219,
67 TOLENTINO, NEW CIVIL CODE, VOL. II, p. 658, citing People v.
_______________ Plaza, 52 O.G. 6609.
68 Id.
64 Article 2217, Civil Code.
65 Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001, 353 491
SCRA 261.
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 491 “the countless gaps in the statutes which leave so many
victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have
Manuel vs. People
actually suffered material and moral injury should
vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of
Indeed, bigamy is not one of those specifically mentioned in moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to
Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which the offender may be prove for specifically in the statutes.” Whether or not the
ordered to pay moral damages to the private principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in
complainant/offended party. Nevertheless, the petitioner is damages under Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code or
liable to the private complainant for moral damages under other applicable provisions of law depends upon the
Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil circumstances of each case.
71
Code. In the present case, the petitioner courted the private

According to Article 19, “every person must, in the complainant and proposed to marry her. He assured her
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his act with that he was single. He even brought his parents to the
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and house of the private complainant where he and his parents
good faith.” This provision contains what is commonly made the same assurance—that he was single. Thus, the
referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, and sets private complainant agreed to marry the petitioner, who
certain standards which must be observed not only in the even stated in the certificate of marriage that he was
exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s single. She lived with the petitioner and dutifully
duties. The standards are the following: act with justice; performed her duties as his wife, believing all the while
give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith. that he was her lawful husband. For two years or so until
The elements for abuse of rights are: (a) there is a legal the petitioner heartlessly abandoned her, the private
right or duty; (b) exercised in bad faith; 69
and (c) for the sole complainant had no inkling that he was already married to
intent of prejudicing or injuring another. another before they were married.
Article 20 speaks of the general sanctions of all other Thus, the private complainant was an innocent victim of
provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own the petitioner’s chicanery and heartless deception, the
sanction. When a right is exercised in a manner which does fraud consisting not of a single act alone, but a continuous
not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision series of acts. Day by day, he maintained the appearance of
and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby 70 being a lawful husband to the private complainant, who
committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. changed her status from a single woman to a married
If the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, woman, lost the consortium, attributes and support of a
an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 single man she could have married lawfully and endured
of the Civil Code would be proper. Article 20 provides that mental pain and humiliation, being bound to a man who it
“every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently turned out was not her lawful husband.
72
causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the

same.” On the other hand, Article 21 provides that “any
_______________
person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public 71 Id.
policy shall compensate the latter for damages.” The latter 72 Leventhal v. Liberman, 186 N.E. 675 (1933).
provision is adopted to remedy
493
_______________
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 493
69 Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694,
January 11, 1993, 217 SCRA 16. Manuel vs. People
70 Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 81262, August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 778. The Court rules that the petitioner’s collective acts of fraud
and deceit before, during and after his marriage with the
492
private complainant were willful, deliberate and with
malice and caused injury to the latter. That she did not
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an73 award for
Manuel vs. People
moral damages. Indeed, in Morris v. Macnab, the New
Jersey Supreme Court ruled:

x x x The defendant cites authorities which indicate that, absent but which is in fact a criminal offense, he has a right of action
physical injuries, damages for shame, humiliation, and mental against the person so inducing him for damages sustained by him
anguish are not recoverable where the actor is simply negligent. in consequence of his having done such act. Burrows v. Rhodes,
See Prosser, supra, at p. 180; 2 Harper & James, Torts, 1031 [1899] 1 Q.B. 816. In Cooper v. Cooper, 147 Mass. 370, 17 N.E.
(1956). But the authorities all recognize that where the wrong is 892, 9 Am. St. Rep. 721, the court said that a false representation
willful rather than negligent, recovery may be had for the by the defendant that he was divorced from his former wife,
ordinary, natural, and proximate consequences though they whereby the plaintiff was induced to marry him, gave her a
consist of shame, humiliation, and mental anguish. See Spiegel v. remedy in tort for deceit. It seems to have been assumed that the
Evergreen Cemetery Co., 117 NJL 90, 94, 186 A 585 (Sup. Ct. fact that she had unintentionally violated the law or innocently
1936); Kuzma v. Millinery Workers, etc., Local 24, 27 N.J. Super, committed a crime by cohabiting with him would be no bar to the
579, 591, 99 A.2d 833 (App. Div. 1953); Prosser, supra, at p. 38. action, but rather that it might be a ground for enhancing her
Here the defendant’s conduct was not merely negligent, but was damages. The injury to the plaintiff was said to be in her being
willfully and maliciously wrongful. It was bound to result in led by the promise to give the fellowship and assistance of a wife
shame, humiliation, and mental anguish for the plaintiff, and to one who was not her husband and to assume and act in a
when such result did ensue the plaintiff became entitled not only relation and condition that proved to be false and ignominious.
to compensatory but also to punitive damages. See Spiegel v. Damages for such an injury were held to be recoverable in
Evergreen Cemetery Co., supra; Kuzma v. Millinery Workers, etc., Sherman v. Rawson, 102 Mass. 395 and Kelley v. Riley, 106 Mass.
Local 24, supra. CF. Note, “Exemplary Damages in the Law of 339, 343, 8 Am. Rep. 336.
Torts,” 70 Harv. L. Rev. 517 (1957). The plaintiff testified that Furthermore, in the case at bar the plaintiff does not base her
because of the defendant’s bigamous marriage to her and the cause of action upon any transgression of the law by herself but
attendant publicity she not only was embarrassed and “ashamed upon the defendant’s misrepresentation. The criminal relations
to go out” but “couldn’t sleep” but “couldn’t eat,” had terrific which followed, innocently on her part, were but one of the
headaches” and “lost quite a lot of weight.” No just basis appears incidental results of the defendant’s fraud for which damages may
for judicial interference with the jury’s reasonable allowance of be assessed.
$1,000 punitive damages on the first count. See Cabakov v. [7] Actions for deceit for fraudulently inducing a woman to
74
Thatcher, 37 N.J. Super 249, 117 A.2d 298 (App. Div. 1955). enter into the marriage relation have been maintained in other
jurisdictions. Sears v. Wegner, 150 Mich. 388, 114 N.W. 224, 17
The Court thus declares that the petitioner’s acts are L.R. A. (N.S.) 819; Larson v. McMillan, 99 Wash. 626, 170 P. 324;
against public policy as they undermine and subvert the Blos-
fam-
_______________
_______________
75 Id., at pp. 611-612.
73 135 A.2d 657 (1957).
74 Id., at p. 662. 495
494
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 495
Manuel vs. People
Manuel vs. People som v. Barrett, 37 N.Y. 434, 97 Am. Dec. 747; Morril v. Palmer, 68
Vt. 1, 33 A. 829, 33 L.R.A. 411. Considerations of public policy
ily as a social institution, good morals and the interest and would not prevent recovery where the circumstances are such
general welfare of society. that the plaintiff was conscious of no moral turpitude, that her
Because the private complainant was an innocent victim illegal action was induced solely by the defendant’s
of the petitioner’s perfidy, she is not barred from claiming misrepresentation, and that she does not base her cause of action
moral damages. Besides, even considerations of public upon any transgression of the law by herself. Such considerations
policy would not prevent her from recovery. As held in distinguish this case from cases in which the court has refused to
75
Jekshewitz v. Groswald: lend its aid to the enforcement of a contract illegal on its face or to
one who has consciously and voluntarily become a party to an
Where a person is induced by the fraudulent representation of illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded. Szadiwicz v.
76
another to do an act which, in consequence of such Cantor, 257 Mass. 518, 520, 154 N.E. 251, 49 A. L. R. 958.
misrepresentation, he believes to be neither illegal nor immoral,
Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the

Court finds the award of P200,000.00 for moral damages to
be just and reasonable.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ.,

concur.
Chico-Nazario, J., On Leave.
Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.
Notes.—A subsequent pronouncement that the

accused’s marriage is void from the beginning is not a
defense in a charge for concubinage—he who contracts a
second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of
the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy. (Beltran vs. People, 334 SCRA 106 [2000])
Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge
for themselves its nullity—only competent courts have such
authority. (Marbella-Bobis vs. Bobis, 336 SCRA 747 [2000])
_______________
76 164 N.E. 609 (1929).
496

Domondon vs. Sandiganbayan
Where the second marriage of a person was entered into in

1979, before Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy (1986), during which
time the prevailing rule was found in Odayat v. Amante, 77
SCRA 338 (1977), People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 (1954)
and People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957), there was no
need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage for
lack of license and consent, before such person may
contract a second marriage. (Ty vs. Court of Appeals, 346
SCRA 86 [2000])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005.

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005.

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

11/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 476 11/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 476

Manuel vs. People

Manuel vs. People

protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social

Manuel vs. People Manuel vs. People

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/34

VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 467

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/34

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/34

2 Penned by Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan.

472 was not motivated by malice in marrying the private

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/34

_______________ 15 G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000, 337 SCRA 122.

years, the judicial declaration of presumed death like

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/34

principio anterior a todos los Codigos, e inscrito en el frontispicio del 479

42 TOLENTINO, THE NEW CIVIL CODE, VOL. I, p. 690.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/34

489 paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

Code. In the present case, the petitioner courted the private

causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/34

Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ.,

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

Notes.—A subsequent pronouncement that the

76 164 N.E. 609 (1929).

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Where the second marriage of a person was entered into in

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e412a8db60d37580e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/34

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen