Summary FACTS
People v. Atienza as 1. Romana Silvestre, wife of Domingo Joaquin by her second
Sylvestre “kabit” ni marriage, cohabited with Martin Atienza in the barrio of
and Sylvestre Masocol, Paombong, Bulacan.
Atienza intentionally 2. Domingo Joaquin filed a sworn complaint for adultery.
set fire the Silvestre and Atienza were arrested. Four days later, they were
barrio of Santo released on bail, each giving a personal bond of P6000.
Nino, same 3. The two defendants begged and urged Domingo Joaquin to
municipality of withdraw the complaint, said that they were discontinue
Paombong cohabitation and Atienza signed the promise of not to live again
because as per in the barrio of Masocol.
the former it 4. Domingo Joaquin filed a motion for the dismissal of his
was his only complaint. The justice of the peace of Paombong dismissed the
way of revenge adultery case and cancelled the bonds. The accused then left the
on the people barrio of Paombong and went to Santo, in the same municipality
of Masocol of Paombong.
who had 5. Romana met her son by her former marriage, Nicolas de la
instigated the Cruz, in the barrio of Santo Niño, and under pretext of asking
charge of him for some nipa leaves, followed him home to the village of
adultery Masocol, and remained there. Martin Atienza, who had
against him continued to cohabit with Romana Silvestre, followed her and
and Silvestre lived in the home of Nicolas de la Cruz.
6. While Nicolas, Antonia, Atienza and Silvestre were gathered
together after supper, Atienza told the couple to take their
furniture out of the house because he was going to set fire to it.
7. Nicolas and Antonia asked why, he answered that it was the
only way he could take revenge on the people of Masocol who
had instigated the charge of adultery against him and Silvestre.
8. Atienza was armed with a pistol and no one dared say
anything to him, not even Romana Silvestre. Alarmed at what
Martin Atienza had said, the couple left the house to
communicate with the barrio lieutenant, as to what they had
just heard Martin Atienza say. But they had hardly gone a
hundred arms' length when they heard cries of "Fire! Fire!"
9. The fire destroyed forty-eight houses. Three witnesses (Tomas
Santiago, Tomas Gonzalez, Felipe Clemente) saw Martin Atienza
going away from the house where the fire started, and Romana
Silvestre leaving it.
The Court of First Instance of Bulacan convicted Atienza and
Silvestre with the crime of arson. The former as principal by
ISSUE RULING
Judgement of the Court Whether or Art. 14 of the Penal Code, in connection with Art.
of First Instance of not Romana 13 defines an accomplice to be one who does not
Bulacan: can be take a direct part in the commission of the act,
convicted as who does not force or induce other to commit it,
Convicted Atienza and accomplice nor cooperates in the commission of the act by
Silvestre with the crime another act without which it would not have
of arson. been accomplished, yet cooperates in the
execution of the act by previous or simultaneous
Martin Atienza (direct actions.
participation): sentenced
to 14 years, 8 months, 1 In the case of Romana: there is no evidence of
day of cadena temporal moral or material cooperation and none of an
(in accordance with par 2 agreement to commit the crime in question. Her
Art 550, Penal Code) mere presence and silence while they are
simultaneous acts, do not constitute
Romana Silvestre (as cooperation, for it does not appear that they
accomplice) sentenced encouraged or nerved Martin Atienza to commit
to 6 years and 1 day of the crime of arson; and as for her failure to give
presidio mayor the alarm, that being a subsequent act it does
not make her liable as an accomplice.
Both had to pay people
that houses were Mere passive presence at the scene of another's
destroyed by the fire. crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm,
without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do
not constitute the cooperation required by Art.
14 of the Penal Code for complicity in the
commission of the crime witnessed passively, or
with regard to which one has kept silent
Decision is affirmed with reference to Martin
Atienza, reversed with reference to Romana
Silvestre, who is acquitted.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is
modified as follows: It is affirmed with reference
to the accused-appellant Martin Atienza, and
reversed with reference to the accused-appellant
Romana Silvestre, who is hereby acquitted with
one-half of the costs de oficio. So ordered.
 direct participation and the latter as accomplice Martin was
convicted as principal by direct participation (14 years, 8
months, and 1 day of cadena temporal)
Romana was convicted as accomplice (6 years and 1 day of
presidio mayor)

The court-appointed counsel for the accused-appellant prays for

the affirmance of the CFI decision with regard to Martin, but
assigns errors with reference to Romana:
a. The lower court erred in convicting Romana as accomplice
b. The court erred in not acquitting Romana upon ground of
insufficient evidence, or at least, of reasonable doubt
People v. Article 8 The relationship of Bernardo Bagabag and appellant Teresa The Court of First Whether or
Talingdan, Par 2 Domogma had been strained and beset with troubles. Nemesio Instance of Abra not Teresa The proof of her direct participation in the
L-32126, A conspiracy Talingdan had visited Teresa twice in their house, 1, while convicted Nemesio Domogma was conspiracy was questionable that’s why she could
July 6, exists when Bernardo was out at work, 2. Made Corazon (12-year-old Talingdan, Magellan rightly not have the same liability as her co-appellants.
1978 two or more daughter) go down the house and leave them. Bernardo had Tobias, Augusta Berras, convicted as She had no hand at all in the actual shooting of
persons come gotten wind that illicit relationship was going on between Pedro Bides and Teresa an accessory her husband. Neither was it clear that she helped
to an Talingdan and Teresa. Domogma for the crime to the crime directly in the planning and preparation. But the
agreement of murder and the Court was convinced that she knew it was going
concerning the Two days before he was gunned down, Bernardo and Teresa had sentence of life to be done and did not object. She was not
commission of a violent quarrel. Bernardo slapped Teresa and she sought imprisonment. As there entirely free from criminal liability.
a felony and the help of the police. Talingdan, a policeman, was armed, was no proof of marriage
decide to came to Bernardo's house and called him to come down. between Teresa There was convincing proof that she was an
commit it. Bernardo ignored him, yet Talingdan warned to kill him Domogma and Bernardo, accessory to the offense committed by her co-
someday. she could not be charged accused. The subsequent acts constitute
with parricide. concealing or assisting in the escape of the
Accomplice is The following morning, Corazon saw her mother, Teresa, principal in the crime which makes her liable as
defined as a meeting with Talingdan, Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras and an accessory after the fact under paragraph 3 of
person who Pedro Bides, she heard one of them say “Could he elude a Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
assists in a bullet”?. When Teresa noticed Corazon, she shoved her
crime willingly daughter away saying “You tell your father that we will kill him.” The crime committed by the male appellants
or knowingly being murder, qualified by treachery, and
whereas On the following day while Corazon was cooking food for attended by the generic aggravating
conspirator is supper, she saw her mother met with the other appellants. She circumstances of evident premeditation and that
defined as a heard them conversing in subdued tones, although she could the offense was committed in the dwelling of the
person who not discern what they were saying. She recognized all of them offended party, the Court has no alternative
enters into a through the open "batalan" and noted that they had long guns. under the law but to impose upon them the
plot with one capital penalty. However, as to appellant Teresa,
or more other Corazon called her parents and told her father about the she is hereby found guilty only as an accessory to
people to presence of persons downstairs but Bernardo paid no attention the same murder.
commit an to what she said. Bernardo went to the kitchen and sat himself
illegal act. on the floor near the door. He was suddenly fired from below
the stairs of the “batalan”.
The four accused climbed the stairs of the “batalan” carrying
their long guns and seeing that Bernardo was still alive,
Talingdan and Tobias fired at him again. Bides and Berras did not
fire their guns but Bides threatened to kill Corazon if she called
for help.
Teresa came out of her “silid” later; she pulled Corazon aside
and questioned her, and when Corazon informed her that she
recognized the killers of her father to be her co-appellants
herein, she warned her not to reveal the matter to anyone,
threatening to kill her if she ever did so.
WHEREFORE, Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan
Tobias, Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides were
found guilty of the crime of murder with two
aggravating circumstances, without any
mitigating circumstance to offset them, they
were each sentenced to death to be executed in
accordance with law. Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as accessory to the same murder,
appellant Teresa Domogma was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of 5 years of prision
correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision
mayor as maximum, with the accessory penalties
of the law.
Manuel v. Manuel Eduardo Manuel married Rubylus Gaña on July 28, 1975. In
People married Tina 1996, he met the private complainant Tina Gandalera and
believing that Eduardo went to Baguio to visit Tina then eventually went to a
his first motel where, Eduardo succeeded having his way with her.
marriage was Eduardo proposed marriage to her.
no longer valid
because he had Tina met Eduardo’s parents and she was assured that their son
not heard from was single. Tina and Eduardo married on April 22, 1996 before
Rubylus (first Judge Antonio C. Reyes. It appeared in their marriage contract
wife) for more that Eduardo was “single”.
than 20 years.
Starting 1999, Manuel started making himself scarce and went
to their house only twice or thrice a year. Tina was jobless, and
whenever she asked money from Eduardo, he would slap her.
Sometime in January 2001, Eduardo took all his clothes, left, and
did not return. He also stopped giving financial support.
Tina became curious and made inquiries from the National
Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila where she learned that Eduardo
had been previously married. She secured an NSO-certified copy
of the marriage contract.
For his defense, Eduardo testified that he met Tina in 1995 in a
bar where she worked as a GRO. He fell in love with her and
married her. He informed Tina of his previous marriage to
Rubylus Gaña, but she still agreed to marry him. Their marital
relationship was in order until this one time when he noticed
that she had a “love-bite” on her neck. He then abandoned her.
Eduardo further testified that he declared he was single in his
marriage contract with Tina because he believed 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. He claimed that he was only forced to marry his first wife
because she threatened to commit suicide unless he did so.
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 lower court found Eduardo guilty of bigamy and
directed to indemnify the private complainant Tina
Whether or For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the
not the prosecution is burdened to prove the felony: (a)
petitioner he/she has been legally married; and (b) he/she
committed contracts a subsequent marriage without the
bigamy former marriage having been lawfully dissolved.
In the present case, the prosecution proved that
the petitioner was married to Gaña in 1975, and
such marriage was not judicially declared a
nullity; hence, the marriage is presumed to
subsist. The prosecution also proved that the
petitioner married the private complainant in
1996, long after the effectivity of the Family
Code.
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.
---
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
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
Gandalera the amount of P200,000.00 by way of moral Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the
damages, plus costs of suit. petitioner.

Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA. Eduardo alleged that SO ORDERED
he was not criminally liable for bigamy because when he married
the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without any
malicious intent. He maintained that at the time that he married
the private complainant, he was of the honest belief that his first
marriage no longer subsisted. The CA rendered judgment
affirming the decision of the RTC