[G.R. No. 124893.
April 18, 1997]
LYNETTE G. GARVIDA, petitioner, vs. FLORENCIO G. SALES, JR., THE HONORABLE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ELECTION OFFICER DIONISIO F. RIOS and
PROVINCIAL SUPERVISOR NOLI PIPO, respondents.
Petitioner Lynette G. Garvida seeks to annul and set aside the order dated May 2, 1996 of respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc suspending her proclamation as the duly elected Chairman of
the Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo, Municipality of Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
The facts are undisputed. The Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections nationwide was scheduled to be held
on May 6, 1996. On March 16, 1996, petitioner applied for registration as member and voter of the Katipunan
ng Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The Board of Election Tellers, however, denied
her application on the ground that petitioner, who was then twenty-one years and ten (10) months old, exceeded
the age limit for membership in the Katipunan ng Kabataan as laid down in Section 3 [b] of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2824.
Issue
Is there a reason to deny or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Gardiva on the ground that she has
exceeded the age requirement to run as an elective official of the SK/
Rulling
Yes, the petition is dismissed and petitioner Lynette G. Garvida is declared ineligible for being over the age
qualification for candidacy in the May 6, 1996 elections of the Sangguniang Kabataan, and is ordered to vacate
her position as Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The
Sangguniang Kabataan member voted by simple majority by and from among the incumbent Sangguniang
Kabataan members of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte shall assume the office of Sangguniang
Kabataan Chairman of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte for the unexpired portion of the term.
FACTS:
July 28, 1975: Eduardo married Rubylus Gaa 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 Eduardos belief, that his first marriage had been dissolved because of his first wifes 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 Gaas presumptive death as the absent spouse and modified minimum to 2 years and four months
ISSUE: Is Eduardo 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
