G.R. NO.

165842 November 29, 2005

EDUARDO P. MANUEL

VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

FACTS:

Eduardo, 39 years old, was already married to Rubylus Gana, when he met Tina Gandalera, 21
years old in Dagupan City. After meeting Tina, Eduardo went to Baguio City to visit her, eventually, as
one thing led to another they went to a motel where Eduardo succeeded in having his way with her.
Eduardo together with his parents went to Baguio City to ask for Tina’s hand for marriage, assuring that
he was single. Tina finally agreed to marry Eduardo, before Judge Antonio C. Reyes, the presiding Judge
RTC Baguio City. In the course of their marriage things got rocky, and Tina found out that Eduardo had
previously been married when they took their vows.

In his defense, Eduardo claimed that he was only forced to marry his first wife because she
threatened to commit suicide unless he did so. Rubylus was charged with Estafa and thereafter
imprisoned. He visited her in jail for three months and never saw her again. He insisted that he married
Tina believing that his first marriage was no longer valid because he had not heard from Rubylus for
more than 20 years. The Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Bigamy
because he failed to ask for a judicial declaration from the court to declare his absentee spouse
presumptively dead.

He appealed to the Court of Appeals, alleging that he married Tina in goodfaith and has no
malicious intent, therefore he should not be held criminally liable. However, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the RTC but modified the penalty sentenced to Eduardo.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not the ignorance of the law and good faith of the accused is a valid defense for a
felony by dolo

RULING:

NO, 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, Ignorance from the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law.

It was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married the private
complainant in 1996, he was of the well-grounded belief that his first wife was already dead, as he had
not heard from her for more than 20 years since 1975. He should have adduced in evidence a decision of
a competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as required by Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such judicial declaration also constitutes
proof that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part when he
married the private complainant and, as a consequence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in such
case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge his burden.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.