Manuel v. People
G.R. No. 165842 November 29, 2005
Lesson: Felony,
Bigamy, Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death, malice, good faith as a
valid defense
·
Actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
Laws
Applicable: Art. 3 par 2 RPC, Art. 349 RPC, Art. 41 FC
FACTS:
·
July 28, 1975: Eduardo married Rubylus Gaña before
Msgr. Feliciano Santos in Makati
o
Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and
thereafter imprisoned
o
Eduardo only visited 3 times and never saw her
again
·
January 1996: Eduardo met Tina B. Gandalera, 21
year old computer secretarial student, in Dagupan City while she looked for a
friend during her 2 days stay
·
Later, Eduardo visited Tina, they went to a
motel together and he proposed marriage and introduced her to his parents who
assures that he is single
·
April 22, 1996: Eduardo married Tina before Judge
Antonio C. Reyes, the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Baguio City and they were
able to build a home after
·
1999: Eduardo only visited their home twice or
thrice a year and whenever jobless Tina would ask for money, he would slap her
·
January 2001: Eduardo packed his things and left
and stopped giving financial support
·
August 2001: Tina through inquiries from the
National Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila and was embarrassed and humiliated to
learn that Eduardo was previously married
·
Eduardo claimed that he did NOT know that he had
to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before
marrying Tina
·
RTC: Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
bigamy and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 6 years and 10 months,
as minimum, to 10 years, as maximum and P200,000.00 by way of moral damages,
plus costs of suit
o
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
·
Eduardo appealed to the CA contending that he
did so in good faith and without any malicious intent whereas under Article 3
of the Revised Penal Code, there must be malice for one to be criminally liable
for a felony
·
CA: affirming the decision of the RTC stating
that Article 41 of the Family Code should apply that there should have been a
judicial declaration of Gaña’s presumptive death as the absent spouse and
modified minimum to 2 years and four months
ISSUE: W/N Eduardo is guilty of Bigamy, a felony by dolo
(deceit).
HELD: YES. petition is DENIED. CA affirmed
·
Art. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor
shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent
marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the
absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment
rendered in the proper proceedings.
o
The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is
to preserve and ensure the juridical tie of marriage established by law.
o
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code has made
the dissolution of marriage dependent not only upon the personal belief of
parties, but upon certain objective facts easily capable of accurate judicial
cognizance, namely, a judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse
·
For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the
prosecution is burdened to prove the felony:
o
(a) he/she has been legally married; and
o
(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
·
Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that there is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent
o
Malice -a mental state or condition prompting
the doing of an overt act WITHOUT legal excuse or justification from which
another suffers injury
o
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
o
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
·
GR: 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.
·
EX: ignorance of the law is not an excuse
because everyone is presumed to know the law.
o
Ignorantia
legis neminem excusat
·
burden of the petitioner to prove his defense
that when he married 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
o
failed to discharge his burden since no judicial
declaration as proof
·
Article 41 of the Family Code amended the rules
on presumptive death on Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code which states
that before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage, he or she
must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death
of the absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of
the absentee spouse.
·
moral damages may be awarded under Article 2219
in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code for being against
public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution,
good morals and the interest and general welfare of society
