INTRO TO LAW CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005

EDUARDO P. MANUEL
VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of bigamy. The petitioner,
was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975, who was convicted for estafa in 1975 and thereafter
imprisoned and was never seen again by him. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the
latter was only 21 years old. Two got married through a civil wedding in Baguio City without Gandalera’s
knowledge of Manuel’s first marriage. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel.
The latter’s defense being that his declaration of “single” in his marriage contract with Gandalera was
done because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid and that he did not know that he
had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. The Regional Trial
Court ruled against him sentencing him of imprisonment of from 6 years and 10 months to ten years, and
an amount 0f P200,000.00 for moral damages. Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA where he
alleged that he was not criminally liable for bigamy as reasons stated. The CA ruled against the petitioner
but with modification on the RTC’s decision. Imprisonment was from 2 years, months and 1 day to ten
years. Pecuniary reward for moral damages was affirmed.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the CA committed reversible error of law when it ruled that petitioner’s 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 and when it affirmed the award of
Php200,000.00 as moral damages as it has no basis in fact and in law.

RULINGS:
No, the CA did not commit any error of law when it ruled the petitioner’s case. The petitioner’s sole
dependence on Article 390 of the Civil Code as basis for his acquittal for bigamy is misdirected. The
presumption of death of the spouse who had been absent for seven years, is created by law and arises
without necessity of judicial declaration. However, Article 41, of the Family Code, which amended the
foregoing rules on presumptive death, provides that for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage
(under its preceding paragraph), the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in
the Court for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse. The petitioner is also liable to the private complainant for moral
damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. Because the private
complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioner’s perfidy, she is not barred from claiming moral
damage. Hence, the petition is DENIED.