CRIM Doctrine: Mental Element (Mens rea) - Deliberate Intent (Dolo)

Title: EDUARDO P. EDUARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Ponente: CALLEJO, SR. J. Date: November 29, 2005

Keywords: Bigamy; deliberate intent; moral damages; SC DENIED PETITION GR No. 165842

EDUARDO P. MANUEL, petitioner PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

Nature of the case: Petition for review of Certiorary of CA affirming RTC of Baguio City decision convicting Eduardo of Bigamy

FACTS ISSUE/S RULING

Jan. 1996- Eduardo Manuel (aged 39) met Tina
Gandalera, (aged 21), a Computer Secretarial
student in Dagupan City. He continued courting
Gandalera, and in one occasion went to Baguio to
visit her, went to a motel and despite Gandalera’s
resistance, succeeded in having his way with her.
Eduardo proposed marriage on several times,
assuring her he was still single. Eduardo even
brought his parents to Baguio and met
Gandalera’s parents, who assured them that
Eduardo was still single.
April 22, 1996- Eduardo married Gandalera in
Baguio RTC. It appeared in their marriage contract
that Eduardo was “SINGLE”.
1. WON Manuel is guilty of Bigamy, a 1. Bigamy is a felony by dolo (deceit). There is deceit when the act is
felony by dolo (deceit). ---YES!
(Not raised in SC petition per se but
relevant to our topic). See notes.
performed with deliberate intent (Art. 3, par 2 of RPC). Since a felony by
dolo is classified as an intentional felony, it is deemed voluntary. The
reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the
juridical tie of marriage established by law. Although the words "with
malice" do not appear in Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, such phrase
is included in the word "voluntary”.
The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and
ensure the juridical tie of marriage established by law.
Malice is a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an overt
act without legal excuse or justification from which another suffers injury.
When the act or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have
been done or committed by the accused, the law presumes it to have
been intentional. Indeed, it is a legal presumption of law that every man
Circa 1999 - After 3 years of a happy married life,
Eduardo scarcely went to their house in Baguio,
only twice or thrice a year. Gandalera was jobless,
and whenever she asked money from Eduardo, he
would slap her.
Circa Jan 2001- Eduardo took all his clothes, did not
return home and stopped giving financial support.
Aug. 2001- Gandalera got curious, found out
through her inquiry in NSO Manila that Eduardo
had been previously married with Rubylus Gaña.
She secured a NSO-certified copy of the said
marriage contract.
Eduardo’s side of the story
1995- He met Gandalera in a bar where she
worked as a Guest Relations Officer (GRO), fell in
love with her. HE INFORMED her that he was
married but she nevertheless agreed to marry him.
It was a happy marriage, until one time he noticed
Gandalera had a ‘love-bite’ on her neck. He then
abandoned her. He declared he was single in his
marriage contract with Gandalera because he
believed in good faith that his 1st marriage was
invalid, and that he did not know that he had to go
to court and nullify his first marriage first before
marrying Gandalera.
In fact, he only married Gaña (his first wife)
because she threatened to commit suicide unless
intends the natural or probable consequence of his voluntary act in the
absence of proof to the contrary, and such presumption must prevail
unless a reasonable doubt exists from a consideration of the whole
evidence. For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must
be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil intent. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea.
For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the prosecution is burdened
to prove the felony: (a) he/she has been legally married; and (b) he/she
contracts a subsequent marriage without the former marriage having
been lawfully dissolved. The felony is consummated on the celebration of
the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the
prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the
essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of
the first marriage.
The prosecution proved that petitioner Eduardo was married to Gaña and
that such marriage was not judicially declared null, hence the marriage is
presumed to subsist. Eduardo 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.
Petitioner Eduardo should have adduced in evidence a decision of a
competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as
required of Article 349 of RPC, in relation to Art. 41 of the family Code.
Such judicial declaration would constitute proof that petitioner acted in
good faith, negate criminal intent on his part and as a consequence
cannot be charged and be held guilty of bigamy.
he marries her. And that in 1975, he says that Gaña
was charged with Estafa and imprisoned. He
visited her in jail after 3 months and never saw her
again. He insisted that he married Gandalera
believing his 1st marriage was no longer valid
because he had not heard from Gaña for more
than 20 years.
RTC Baguio ruling:
Eduardo is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of NO!
bigamy. All elements of bigamy are present.
Penalty: Indeterminate penalty minimum of from
6 years and 10 months to 10 years max
imprisonment; P200,000 moral damages, plus cost
of suit to Gandalera. Criminal Case No. 19562-R.
It also declared that Eduardo's belief, that his first
marriage had been dissolved because of his first
wife's 20-year absence, even if true, did not
exculpate him from liability for bigamy. Citing the
ruling of SC in People v. Bitdu, even if the private
complainant had known that Eduardo had been
previously married, the latter would still be
criminally liable for bigamy.
Case was Elevated to CA.
Court of Appeals
2. WON or not the CA committed
reversible error of law when it
affirmed the award of
Php200,000.00 as moral damages as must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly
it has no basis in fact and in law. –
2. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. An award for moral
damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there
sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission
factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant
is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth,
the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article
2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
In the present case, the petitioner courted the private complainant and
proposed to marry her. He assured her that he was single. He even
brought his parents to the house of the private complainant where he
and his parents made the same assurance - that he was single. Thus, the
private complainant agreed to marry the petitioner, who even stated in
the certificate of marriage that he was single. She lived with the petitioner
and dutifully performed her duties as his wife, believing all the while that
he was her lawful husband. For two years or so until the petitioner
heartlessly abandoned her, the private complainant had no inkling that
he was already married to another before they were married.
Thus, the private complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioner's
chicanery and heartless deception, the fraud consisting not of a single act
alone, but a continuous series of acts. Day by day, he maintained the
appearance of being a lawful husband to the private complainant, who
changed her status from a single woman to a married woman, lost the
consortium, attributes and support of a single man she could have
Eduardo contends that he is not criminally liable married lawfully and endured mental pain and humiliation, being bound
for bigamy because when he married Gandalera, to a man who it turned out was not her lawful husband.
he did so in good faith and without malicious The Court rules that the petitioner's collective acts of fraud and deceit
intent. He was of the honest belief that his first before, during and after his marriage with the private complainant were
marriage no longer subsisted. In Article 3 of RPC, willful, deliberate and with malice and caused injury to the latter. That she
there must be malice for one to be criminally liable did not sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an award for moral
for a felony. Art. 390 of New Civil Code (NCC) damages (Morris v. Macnab).
should have been taken into account, citing SC
ruling in US v. Peñalosa , and Manahan Jr. v. CA. In the case at bar the plaintiff does not base her cause of action upon any
transgression of the law by herself but upon the defendant's
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) posits Art. 41 misrepresentation. The criminal relations which followed, innocently on
of Family Code amended Article 390 of the Civil her part, were but one of the incidental results of the defendant's fraud
Code. There is a need for a judicial declaration for for which damages may be assessed.
presumption of death of the absent spouse to
enable the present spouse to marry. Even if
Gandalera had prior knowledge of the first
marriage, it would not offer any relief since bigamy
is an offense against the state not just against the
private complainant. OSG agreed with appellant
Eduardo that the penalty imposed was erroneous
and have to be modified.

July 18,2004: CA AFFIRMED the decision of RTC

Baguio with modification of penalty of the
accused. Article 41 of Family Code should apply in
the instant case not Art 390 of NCC. There should
have been a judicial declaration of Gaña’s
presumptive death as the absent spouse (Mercado
v. Tan, Domingo v. CA).
Penalty: 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prison
correctional as minimum, to 10 years of prison
mayor as maximum. Case was elevated to SC.

WHEREFORE the Court finds the award of P200,000 for moral damages to be just and reasonable. Petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Notes:

1st of 2 issues raised by Manuel to SC Petition for Review of Certiorary:

WON the court of appeals committed reversible error of law when it ruled that petitioner's first 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. (Didn’t include since PERSONS topic).