G.R. No.

165842
Manuel vs People (November 29, 2005)

Facts:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the
decision of the RTC of Baguio City, convicting Eduardo P. Manuel (herein petitioner) of bigamy.

In this case, petitioner courted Tina Gandalera-Manuel (private-complainant) and proposed to

marry her, all the while, making the latter believe that he is single. To assure the private-complainant,
petitioner even brought his parents to their house. The private-complainant then agreed to marry him.
The petitioner even stated in the contract that he is single. The private-complainant lived with the
petitioner and performed her duties as his wife, believing that he was a lawful husband. After two year,
the petitioner abandoned her and stopped giving financial support. She eventually found out that the
petitioner was previously married to a woman who went absent for over 20 years. Being absent for
more than 20 years and under the law, the petitioner presumed that she was dead, thereby moving on
and marrying the private-complainant, without presenting a judicial declaration of presumptive death of
her first spouse. The private-complainant, upon the knowledge of this fact, then filed a criminal case of
bigamy against the petitioner. The latter’s defense was the fact that his first spouse was presumed dead
because of her absence for more than 20 years. He did not know that he had to go to court to seek for
nullification of his first marriage in order for him to contract a subsequent marriage. The RTC ruled
against him sentencing him of imprisonment from six (6) years and ten (10) months to ten (10) years,
and moral damages amounting to P200,000.00.

Issues:
1) Whether or not the CA indeed committed a reversible error of law when It ruled that
petitioner’s wife cannot be presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code, as there was
no judicial declaration of presumptive death as provided for under Article 4 of the Family
Code.
2) Whether or not the CA committed reversible error of law when it affirmed the award of
moral damages (P200,000.00) as it has no basis in fact and in law.

Held:
1) The petition was denied for lack of merit. In this case, the petitioner was presumed to have
acted with malice and evil intent when he married the private-complainant. Mistake of fact
or the accused’s good faith could have been a valid defense in a prosecution of a felony by
dolo. But as seen in his defense, ignorance of law is not an excuse because everyone is
presumed to know the law. A spouse can only contract a second/subsequent marriage if
he/she secures a judgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent/former spouse to
avoid being charged of bigamy. Such judicial declaration would have been a valid proof of
the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a second marriage.
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. That she did not sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an
award for moral damages. The Court further declares that the petitioner’s acts are against
public policy, and because the private-complainant was an innocent victim of the
petitioner’s malicious and fraudulent acts, she is not barred from claiming moral damages.