Case Summary (G.R. No. 206284)
Facts and Chronology of Events
Redante was first married to Maria Socorro on 31 August 1984. Maria Socorro later moved to Canada, obtained Canadian citizenship on 1 April 1988, and secured a divorce from Redante through the Supreme Court of British Columbia on 1 November 1988. The couple unsuccessfully attempted reconciliation in 1992, resulting in the birth of a child in 1993. Redante then married Fe on 29 December 1998 without legally dissolving his first marriage under Philippine law. Fe filed a bigamy complaint on 4 June 2007.
Procedural History
Redante pleaded not guilty and presented a defense based on the validity of his first marriage’s dissolution through foreign divorce. The RTC allowed taking testimony from Maria Socorro, who confirmed the Canadian divorce. The prosecution filed for reverse trial due to Redante’s admissions, resulting in the defense presenting its evidence first. The courtroom evidence included marriage contracts, testimonies, and a certificate of divorce from Canada.
RTC Decision
The RTC convicted Redante of bigamy, citing his failure to present competent evidence proving the divorce decree’s validity under Canadian law and failure to obtain judicial recognition of the said divorce in the Philippines. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty.
CA Decision
The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling, holding that mere presentation of a certificate of divorce did not prove the divorce’s effectivity or Redante’s capacity to remarry. It underscored Redante's failure to secure and prove judicial recognition or legal capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Office of the Solicitor General’s Position
The OSG filed a manifestation arguing for Redante’s acquittal, claiming that the failure to present evidence of Maria Socorro’s citizenship date during trial was the primary basis for conviction. It submitted a photocopy of the citizenship certificate which allegedly established her citizenship as of 1 April 1988, thereby validating the divorce decree. The OSG emphasized that substantive rights must prevail over procedural lapses.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Elements of Bigamy
To convict for bigamy, it must be shown that (1) the accused was legally married, (2) the first marriage was not legally dissolved nor was the spouse absent and presumed dead, (3) a subsequent marriage was contracted, and (4) the subsequent marriage fulfilled all requisites for validity. Redante admitted two marriages but claimed the first was dissolved by foreign divorce; hence, the burden rested on him to prove the divorce’s validity.
Requirement of Proof for Termination of First Marriage by Foreign Divorce
A foreign divorce decree affecting marital status is a foreign judgment requiring recognition by Philippine courts before being valid domestically. Recognition does not require separate proceedings but should be proven as part of the claim or defense. The party must present the foreign divorce decree and prove the foreign law permitting such divorce, following Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court through authenticated documents and official certifications.
Failure to Comply with Proof Requirements
Redante’s evidence was limited to a certificate of divorce issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which was not the actual divorce decree, lacked the mandatory certifications from Philippine consular authorities, and was not supported by proof of the applicable Canadian law. The inability to demonstrate the nature of the divorce under Canadian law—whether it conferred capacity to remarry—was fatal to his defense.
Implications of Philippine Family Code and Jurisprudence
While Article 26, second paragraph, of the Family Code allows Filipino spouses of alien nationals who obtained foreign divorce to remarry upon judicial declaration, this did not apply to Redante because he never obtained judicial recognition of the divorce decree. Previous jurisprudence (Republic v. Orbecido) reiterated the need for competent evidence of divorce and naturalization to validate remarriage capacity, which Redante failed to meet.
Reject
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206284)
Facts and Procedural History
- Petitioner Redante Sarto y Misalucha was charged with bigamy for contracting two marriages: first with Maria Socorro G. Negrete and second with Fe R. Aguila without legally dissolving the first marriage.
- The criminal complaint was filed by Fe on June 4, 2007. The Information alleged the second marriage was solemnized on December 29, 1998, while the first marriage remained legally effective.
- Redante pleaded not guilty; during pre-trial he admitted two marriages but claimed the first was legally dissolved by divorce obtained abroad.
- The RTC allowed taking the deposition of Maria Socorro prior to her leaving the country, after which the prosecution moved for a reverse trial, granted by the court, requiring the defense to present its evidence first.
- Trial testimonies and documentary evidence were presented by both sides prior to RTC's July 18, 2009 decision convicting petitioner Redante of bigamy.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on July 31, 2012, and denied reconsideration in its March 6, 2013 resolution.
- The petition for review on certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction.
Evidence and Testimonies
- Defense established that Redante and Maria Socorro were married in 1984 in Angono, Rizal.
- Maria Socorro emigrated to Canada, acquired Canadian citizenship on April 1, 1988, and obtained a divorce decree from the Supreme Court of British Columbia effective November 1, 1988.
- Despite the divorce, they reunited in 1992 briefly, resulting in a daughter born in 1993; however, the marriage failed thereafter.
- Redante met Fe in 1998, admitted to a prior marriage that was divorced, and married Fe on December 29, 1998. They had two children.
- Maria Socorro remarried in Canada in 2000.
- Defense presented a Certificate of Divorce issued January 14, 2008, certifying the 1988 divorce decree.
- Prosecution rested on marriage contracts and adopted the divorce certificate but did not present a divorce decree or evidence showing legal recognition under Philippine law.
Issues
- Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in finding petitioner Redante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy considering the foreign divorce decree allegedly terminating his first marriage.
The Supreme Court's Ruling on Bigamy Elements and Burden of Proof
- Essential elements of bigamy: (1) legal first marriage; (2) first marriage not legally dissolved or spouse not presumed dead; (3) contracting of second marriage; (4) second marriage has requisites for validity.
- Redante admitted dual marriages, invoking as defense that the first marriage was terminated by a foreign divorce obtained by his alien spouse.
- The burden to prove termination of the first marriage (foreign divorce) lies with the one asserting it.
- Divorce decree obtained abroad is a foreign judgment