Case Summary (G.R. No. 165842)
Facts of the First and Second Marriages
Eduardo married Rubylus GaAa in 1975 without subsequent annulment or dissolution. He met 21-year-old Tina Gandalera in January 1996 in Dagupan, courted and assured her he was single, and they married on April 22, 1996 in Baguio. The marriage contract stated he was “single.” They lived together and built a home until 1999, when Eduardo became abusive and increasingly distant. He left permanently in January 2001. In August 2001, Tina obtained an NSO certificate revealing Eduardo’s prior marriage.
Proceedings at the Regional Trial Court
An information for bigamy under RPC Art. 349 was filed on November 7, 2001. At trial, the prosecution established: (1) the 1975 marriage was valid and undissolved; (2) Eduardo contracted a second marriage in 1996; and (3) Tina was unaware of the first marriage. Eduardo claimed good faith belief in Rubylus’s death due to long absence. The RTC rendered judgment on July 2, 2002, convicting Eduardo of bigamy, sentencing him to 6 years and 10 months to 10 years’ imprisonment, and awarding Tina P200,000 moral damages. The court held that absence of judicial declaration of death precluded exculpation.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Eduardo appealed, contending his good-faith belief under Civil Code Art. 390 negated criminal intent and obviated the need for judicial declaration. He invoked RPC Art. 3 (requirement of malice) and New Civil Code formal presumption of death after seven years. The OSG argued that Family Code Art. 41—requiring judicial declaration of presumptive death before a subsequent marriage—applies, and knowledge by Tina is irrelevant. On June 18, 2004, the CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to 2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 10 years, citing Mercado v. Tan and Domingo v. CA.
Issues Raised in the Petition
- Whether Rubylus’s 21-year absence automatically presumed her death under Civil Code Art. 390, exempting Eduardo from bigamy liability without judicial declaration under Family Code Art. 41.
- Whether the award of P200,000 moral damages lacked factual and legal basis.
Legal Definition and Elements of Bigamy
RPC Art. 349 punishes contracting a second marriage while the first subsists or before judicial declaration of presumptive death. Elements are:
- A valid first marriage not lawfully dissolved;
- A subsequent marriage valid in form;
- Criminal intent (dolo), presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Good faith belief may negate intent, but only if corroborated by a judicial decree declaring the first spouse presumptively dead, as required by Art. 349.
Presumptive Death: Civil Code vs. Family Code Requirements
Civil Code Art. 390 presumes death after seven years’ absence (for most purposes except succession) by operation of law; Art. 391 extends similar rules to specific perilous circumstances. However, the Family Code Art. 41 (effective 1988) reduces the period to four years (two years where peril of death existed) and mandates that the present spouse initiate a summary proceeding for judicial declaration of presumptive death before contracting a subsequent marriage.
Judicial Declaration Requirement for Subsequent Marriages
Art. 41 of the Family Code harmonizes with RPC Art. 349’s phrase “declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.” Judicial declaration protects the State and parties by ensuring objective proof of death, avoiding self-help determinations based solely on subjective belief. Pre-Family Code jurisprudence (Jones v. Hortiguela, Szatraw, Lukban) held no decree was needed for marriage purposes, but these rulings were effectively superseded by the clear mandate of Art. 41.
Burden of Proof and the Role of Good Faith
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (ignorantia legis neminem excusat). An accused must present a judicial decree of presumptive death to establish good faith and negate malice. Eduardo failed to produce any court judgment sustaining his contention that Rubylus was presumptively dead. His subjective belief, however honest, did not satisfy the statutory requirement.
Constitutional and Public Policy Considerations
Under the 1987 Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 12), the State must protect and strengthen the family. Marriage, as a fundamental social institution, requires legal safeguards against unauthorized severance. Requiring judicial intervention before presuming death reinforces public policy favoring marital stability and orderly dissolution only by law.
Denial of the Petition on Bigamy Liability
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. It held: (1) the first marriage subsists absent judicial nullity or d
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 165842)
Facts of the Case
- In 1975, Eduardo P. Manuel married Rubylus GaAa before Msgr. Feliciano Santos in Makati, then part of Rizal Province.
- In January 1996, Eduardo met 21-year-old Tina B. Gandalera in Dagupan City; Tina was a secretarial student and Tina and Eduardo spent time together in a motel.
- Eduardo repeatedly assured Tina that he was single, even presenting his parents to Tina’s family to confirm his alleged single status.
- On April 22, 1996, Eduardo and Tina married before Judge Antonio C. Reyes of RTC Baguio City, Branch 61; Eduardo stated in the marriage contract that he was “single.”
- The couple built a home in Baguio City and lived together happily until 1999, when Eduardo began to neglect Tina, visited rarely, and responded to her requests for money with physical abuse.
- In January 2001, Eduardo abandoned Tina entirely and ceased financial support.
- Tina later obtained an NSO-certified copy of Eduardo’s first marriage contract and learned of Rubylus’s existence, causing her humiliation.
- Eduardo testified he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid or that Rubylus was dead, having not heard from her for over 20 years, and that he had informed Tina of his prior marriage (which Tina denied).
Procedural History
- RTC Branch 3, Baguio City, Criminal Case No. 19562-R: convicted Eduardo of bigamy under Article 349, RPC; sentenced to 6 years and 10 months to 10 years imprisonment and P200,000 moral damages.
- Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. CR No. 26877: affirmed RTC’s conviction but modified penalty to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 10 years imprisonment; upheld award of moral damages.
- Supreme Court, G.R. No. 165842: petition for review on certiorari filed by Eduardo, raising two issues:
• Whether judicial declaration of presumptive death was required under Civil Code Article 390 or Family Code Article 41 before contracting second marriage;
• Whether moral damages award