GR 165842; (November, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165842 November 29, 2005
Eduardo P. Manuel vs. People of the Philippines
FACTS
Petitioner Eduardo P. Manuel was legally married to Rubylus Gaña on July 28, 1975. In 1996, he contracted a second marriage with Tina Gandalera in Baguio City. In their marriage contract, Eduardo declared himself to be “single.” The couple cohabited until 2001, when Tina discovered Eduardo’s prior marriage through an inquiry with the National Statistics Office. Consequently, Eduardo was charged with bigamy.
At trial, Eduardo admitted his first marriage but claimed he married Tina in good faith. He testified that he believed his first marriage was no longer valid because he had not seen or heard from his first wife for over twenty years since her imprisonment for estafa. He argued he lacked malicious intent, as he genuinely believed he was free to marry again. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of bigamy, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether Eduardo P. Manuel’s honest but mistaken belief that his first marriage was dissolved due to his spouse’s prolonged absence constitutes a valid defense against the crime of bigamy.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The crime of bigamy, under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, is malum prohibitum. Its essential elements are: (1) a first valid marriage, (2) that marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case of a void marriage, its nullity has not been judicially declared, and (3) the accused contracts a second marriage. Criminal intent is not an element; good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a defense. The law presumes that anyone who contracts a second marriage knows the legal consequences of their first marriage.
Eduardo’s defense of good faith based on his first wife’s 20-year absence is legally untenable. Under Article 41 of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of presumptive death is required before a spouse can remarry. A spouse cannot unilaterally and subjectively determine the dissolution of a marriage. The first marriage remained legally undissolved, and its validity was never judicially assailed. Therefore, by contracting a second marriage while his first marriage subsisted, Eduardo committed all the elements of bigamy. His personal belief, however sincere, does not negate criminal liability.