MANUEL VS.

PEOPLE
(G.R No. 165842, November 29, 2005)
Nature of Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari

Facts:

Eduardo Manuel married Rubylou Gaas in 1976. On April 22, 1996, he married Tina B. Gandalera. Tina was
unaware of his prior marriage. While their marriage was happy at first, Manuel’s visits to the house became scarce
starting 1999 and he would slap Tina whenever she asked for financial support (she was jobless). In 2001, he left
the conjugal home altogether and stopped giving Tina financial support completely. Tina went to the NSO and
discovered that Manuel was already married. According to Manuel, he met Tina at a bar where she was working
as a Guest Relations Officer (GRO). He also believed that he was already single since he had not seen his wife
since 1976 after she was jailed for estafa. He told Tina about his marriage but Tina didn’t mind.

The trial court convicted Manuel of bigamy. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction but modified the
penalty. Thus, the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issues/Held:
1) Whether or not a judicial declaration of presumptive death is required against a charge of bigamy. – YES.
2) Whether or not Article 41 of the Family Code applies for purposes of remarriage only and not as a defense
against bigamy. – NO.

Ratio Decidendi:

1) The elements of bigamy are as follows: (1) there is a valid subsisting marriage; (2) the accused contracts a
second marriage; (3) fraudulent intention (dolo).

To avoid being charged with bigamy under the third element, the present spouse will have to “adduce
evidence that he had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. Such judgment is
proof of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage; thus, even if the
present spouse is later charged with bigamy if the absentee spouse reappears, he cannot be convicted of
the crime.”

Amending Article 390 of the Civil Code, Article 41 of the Family Code now requires that the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding with the Court for the declaration of presumptive death of
the absent spouse without prejudice to the effects of his/her reappearance.

2) Article 41 is not limited to cases of remarriage only. It was designed to harmonize civil law with the
Revised Penal Code, and put to rest confusion arising out of the Court decisions and comments of eminent
authorities on criminal law.

As Applied to the Facts:

Petitioner’s reliance on Article 390 is misplaced. While Petitioner claims he did not know a judicial declaration of
presumptive death is required to avoid being charged with bigamy, all are presumed to know the law and
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Likewise, Petitioner’s argument that private
complainant knew he was married is not a defense in a charge for bigamy.

Petitioner made the private complainant believe he was single. He even brought his parents to meet her parents
to reassure her and her family that he was single. He even stated in the certificate of marriage that he was single.
When they lived together, Petitioner maintained the lie, acting as her lawful husband.

Dispositive Portion:
Petition DENIED. CA judgment is affirmed. Costs against the Petitioner.