FACTS
Rommel Genio was charged with Bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code for contracting a second marriage with Maricar Santos Galapon on September 7, 2013, while his first marriage with Magdalena Esler Genio remained subsisting. The prosecution presented Magdalena as its principal witness and offered the marriage certificate of Rommel and Maricar, which was a certified true copy issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). The defense stipulated to the existence and authenticity of the second Marriage Certificate.
Rommel admitted his first marriage and did not deny the signatures appearing on the marriage certificates. However, he argued that his second marriage was void ab initio because it was not solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija and there was no valid marriage ceremony. Maricar testified that the ceremony was conducted at her residence by Engineer Rolando Occasion, the municipal civil registrar, rather than by the Municipal Mayor. Other defense witnesses likewise testified that the Mayor was not present and that there was no exchange of vows or wedding rings.
The RTC convicted Rommel of Bigamy. It relied principally on the Marriage Certificate as a public record, treating it as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, including that the marriage had been solemnized by the Municipal Mayor in his office and in the presence of witnesses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Marriage Certificate, as a public record and prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the second marriage had all the essential and formal requisites for validity, thereby establishing Rommel's guilt for Bigamy.
HELD
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition in part and set aside Rommel's conviction for Bigamy. The Court held that the Marriage Certificate, being a public record, was indeed prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Its existence and authenticity had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, it could initially serve as prima facie proof that the second marriage was solemnized on September 7, 2013, by the Municipal Mayor of Guimba, in the presence of witnesses, and that Rommel and Maricar declared that they accepted each other as husband and wife.
However, the Court held that this evidentiary presumption could not by itself establish an element of Bigamy beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 6, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, when a presumed fact establishes guilt, is an element of the offense, or negates a defense, the basic fact must first be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumed fact must follow from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, while the prosecution proved the basic fact—the existence and authenticity of the Marriage Certificate—the resulting presumed fact, that the second marriage possessed all the essential and formal requisites for validity, was rebutted by the defense evidence. The burden shifted to Rommel only to go forward with evidence to rebut the presumption; it did not shift to him the ultimate burden of proving his innocence.
The Court found that Rommel successfully presented evidence creating a genuine issue concerning the validity of the second marriage. The testimonies of Maricar, Myra, and Gloria indicated that the Municipal Mayor was not present, that the ceremony was conducted by Engineer Occasion, and that there was no proper marriage ceremony. Once the presumption was rebutted, the presumption could no longer substitute for proof of the essential and formal requisites of the marriage. The burden therefore returned to the prosecution to establish those requisites beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to discharge that burden. Its evidence consisted principally of Magdalena's testimony, the marriage certificate of the first marriage, birth certificates, the birth certificate of Rommel and Maricar's child, and the second Marriage Certificate. The prosecution did not present sufficient independent evidence establishing that the second marriage had been solemnized by a duly authorized solemnizing officer and that the required marriage ceremony had actually been conducted.
Accordingly, the Court held that Rommel could not be convicted of Bigamy, because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the second marriage had the essential and formal requisites for validity. The Court nevertheless found him guilty of Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code, or knowingly contracting a marriage against the provisions of law, since that offense was necessarily included in the charge of Bigamy under the variance doctrine.
The Court sentenced Rommel to six months of arresto mayor as minimum to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional as maximum, with credit for preventive detention.
No comments:
Post a Comment