Case Summary (G.R. No. 261666)
Procedural History
Rommel was arraigned in RTC, pleaded not guilty, and stipulated to the authenticity of his second marriage certificate. After trial, the RTC convicted him of Bigamy (Art. 349, RPC). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Rommel petitioned for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Prosecution’s Version
Magdalena Esler Genio testified to her valid marriage to Rommel in 2006 and its subsistence. She uncovered Rommel’s second marriage to Maricar Santos Galapon in 2013 through Facebook, personal observation, and certified copies of Maricar’s birth certificate and their PSA‐issued marriage certificate. The RTC admitted: complaint‐affidavit, First Marriage Certificate, birth certificates of children, and second marriage documents.
Defense’s Version
Rommel acknowledged both marriages but contended the second was void ab initio for lack of a valid solemnizing officer (the Municipal Mayor) and absence of a marriage ceremony as required by Article 6 of the Family Code. Defense witnesses (Maricar, her sister Myra, and Gloria) testified that the 2013 ceremony at Maricar’s home was officiated by the civil registrar, without mayoral presence, vows, or ring exchange.
RTC Ruling
The RTC found all elements of Bigamy proven beyond reasonable doubt. It gave greater weight to the PSA marriage certificate (public document presumptively regular) over defense testimonies. It sentenced Rommel to prision correccional (indeterminate term).
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing Article 410 Civil Code and Article 6 Family Code: no prescribed form for ceremony, only personal appearance, declaration before solemnizing officer, and two witnesses. It held the PSA certificate prima facie proof of valid solemnization and deemed the defense evidence insufficient to rebut the presumption.
Issue on Fourth Element of Bigamy
The sole issue on certiorari became whether the prosecution proved the fourth element of Bigamy—i.e., that the second marriage had all essential and formal requisites—beyond reasonable doubt.
Use of Evidentiary Presumption under 2019 Amendments
Section 6, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court (2019 Amendments) permits evidentiary presumptions if: (a) the basic fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt; and (b) the presumed fact follows from it beyond reasonable doubt. An evidentiary presumption shifts only the burden to go forward with evidence, not the burden of persuasion, which remains on the prosecution.
Application to Marriage Certificate Presumption
The Marriage Certificate between Rommel and Maricar was judicially admitted and certified by the PSA, establishing its existence and authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. As a public record, it was prima facie evidence of its contents, including solemnization by the mayor, personal declarations, and two witnesses.
Burden of Proof and Rebuttal under Section 6, Rule 131
Once the basic fact is proven, the certificate creates only a prima facie inference of valid solemnization. The burden then shifts to the accused to produce substantial evidence contradicting the inference. The quantum required to rebut is “some evidence” or substantial evidence, not clear and convincing evidence.
Rebuttal by Rommel and Reasonable Doubt
Rommel’s witnesses uniformly testified that no mayor officiated and no valid ceremony occurred. Their testimony, unrefuted by the prosecution, generated reasonable doubt whether the formal requisites were observed. Under the “moral certainty” standard, any iota of doubt prohibits drawing the presumption.
Failure of Prosecution to Prove Fourth Element
With the presumption rebutted, the prosecution lacked other evidence to prove solemnization beyond reasonable doubt. The certificate’s entries could no longer be presumed correct, and MQ. went back to the prosecution, which chose not to present further proof. Thus, the State failed to establish the fourth element of Bigamy.
Inapplicability of Estoppel and Santiago
The People’s reliance on estoppel and Santiago v. People was rejected because estoppel cannot override positive Family Code provisions on marriage requisites. Santiago involved misrepresentation to secure a license, distinct from the absence of formal solemnization here.
Conviction under Article 350 (Marriage Against Law)
By variance doctrine (Rules 12
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 261666)
Facts of the Case
- Rommel Genio y Santos (“Rommel”) legally married Magdalena Esler Genio (“Magdalena”) on May 20, 2006 in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, and had three children with her.
- Since 2013, Magdalena and Rommel lived separately but their marriage remained subsisting and was never dissolved.
- Rumors and Facebook photos suggested Rommel contracted a second marriage with Maricar Santos Galapon (“Maricar”) on September 7, 2013 in Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
- Magdalena secured a PSA-certified copy of the Marriage Certificate between Rommel and Maricar and a birth certificate of their child. She also saw Rommel and Maricar together at Maricar’s residence.
Procedural History
- June 21, 2016: Information for Bigamy under Article 349, RPC filed in RTC Branch 33, Guimba, Nueva Ecija (Criminal Case No. 4355-G). Rommel pleaded not guilty.
- April 26, 2019: RTC convicted Rommel of Bigamy, sentencing him to prision correccional indeterminate. RTC denied his motion for reconsideration on September 11, 2019.
- July 16, 2021: Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR 44190 affirmed RTC’s decision and denied Rommel’s appeal. CA denied his motion for reconsideration on June 7, 2022.
- January 24, 2024: Supreme Court granted Rommel’s Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, limited to the fourth element of Bigamy (validity requisites of the second marriage).
Issue
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the second marriage between Rommel and Maricar had all the essential and formal requisites for its validity, satisfying the fourth element of Bigamy under Article 349, RPC.
Prosecution’s Evidence and Arguments
- Formal Offer of Evidence admitted:
• Complaint-Affidavit of Magdalena.
• Marriage Certificate of Rommel and Magdalena (first marriage).
• Birth certificates of Rommel and Magdalena’s children.
• PSA-certified copy of the Birth Certificate of Rommel and Maricar’s child.
• PSA-certified copy of the Marriage Certificate between Rommel and Maricar (second marriage). - Magdalena testified on the existence and subsistence of the first marriage and on her discovery of the second marriage via social media, house visit, and official documents.
- Prosecution relied on the presumption that the PSA Marriage Certificate is prima facie evidence of all its contents, including the authority of the solemnizing officer and the ceremony details.
Defense’s Evidence and Arguments
- Rommel did not deny his first marriage or the authenticity of both Marriage Certificates.
- Defense contended the second marriage was void ab initio for lack of a duly authorized solemnizing officer (the Municipal Mayor did not officiate; an engineer acted as Civil Registrar) and absence of a formal c