Case Summary: Rommel Genio y Santos vs. People (G.R. No. 261666)
Facts
Rommel Genio y Santos (Rommel) was charged with and convicted of Bigamy (Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code or RPC) for contracting a second marriage with Maricar Santos Galapon (Maricar) on September 7, 2013, while his first marriage to Magdalena Esler Genio (May 20, 2006) was still subsisting and undissolved.
Rommel did not deny the existence or authenticity of either marriage certificate. However, he argued on appeal that his second marriage was void ab initio because it lacked the formal requisites of a valid marriage under the Family Code. Specifically, he asserted that the marriage was not solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija (as recorded in the certificate), but by a Civil Registrar, and that no actual marriage ceremony took place.
The prosecution, affirmed by the RTC and CA, relied primarily on the Marriage Certificate as a public document, which is considered prima facie evidence of its contents (including the solemnities observed), presumed correct and regular under Article 410 of the Civil Code. The CA erred by requiring Rommel to overcome this presumption with “clear and convincing evidence”.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the second marriage between Rommel and Maricar possessed all the essential and formal requisites for its validity, thereby warranting a conviction for Bigamy.
- Whether Rommel, having been acquitted of Bigamy, may be held criminally liable for Contracting a Marriage Against Provisions of Laws under Article 350 of the RPC.
Ruling
The Court GRANTS the Petition IN PART.
The Decision dated July 16, 2021, and the Resolution dated June 7, 2022, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44190, finding petitioner Rommel Genio y Santos guilty of the crime of Bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code are SET ASIDE on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Court hereby finds petitioner Rommel Genio y Santos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of knowingly contracting a marriage against provisions of laws, as defined and penalized under Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code.
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court established the following controlling doctrines and legal principles:
- Defense of Void Second Marriage in Bigamy: The accused in a criminal case for Bigamy may validly raise the defense that the second or subsequent marriage is void ab initio (on grounds other than being bigamous) even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity. If the second marriage is void ab initio, the fourth element of Bigamy is lacking, warranting acquittal for the felony.
- Use of Evidentiary Presumptions in Criminal Cases (Section 6, Rule 131, Rules of Court, as amended):
- When the State uses an evidentiary presumption to establish guilt or prove an element of the crime charged, the reasonable doubt standard must be observed.
- The basic fact (e.g., the Marriage Certificate) must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumed fact (e.g., regularity of solemnization) must follow from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt.
- Burden of Proof and Rebuttal: The prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt (burden of persuasion) never shifts to the accused. The evidentiary presumption merely shifts the burden of going forward with evidence to the accused.
- Quantum of Proof for Rebuttal: To rebut an evidentiary presumption establishing guilt, the accused is required to present only substantial evidence (or “some evidence”). Requiring the higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to overturn the presumption of regularity (as done by the CA and RTC) is plain error and violates the constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
- Estoppel is Inapplicable Against Positive Law: The equitable principle of estoppel cannot be applied against the positive provisions of the Family Code prescribing the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage (Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code) to sustain a criminal conviction for Bigamy.
- Variance Doctrine and Article 350, RPC: When the essential elements of Bigamy (Article 349, RPC) are not fully met because the second marriage is proven void ab initio for lacking the requisite solemnities, the accused may be convicted of the lesser included offense of Contracting a Marriage Against Provisions of Laws (Article 350, RPC), provided the elements thereof are proven. Rommel was liable under Article 350 because he contracted the second marriage knowing that his first, undissolved marriage constituted a legal impediment (Article 41, Family Code).
Sample Q&A
Question: Rommel was acquitted of Bigamy (Art. 349, RPC) because he proved, through the testimony of his second wife and other witnesses, that the second marriage lacked the formal requisites of validity, particularly the authority of the solemnizing officer (Art. 3, Family Code). However, the Supreme Court convicted him under Article 350 of the RPC (Contracting a Marriage Against Provisions of Laws). Explain the rationale for this modified conviction, specifying the relevant elements of the two crimes and the legal provisions on marriage involved.
Answer:
Rommel was acquitted of Bigamy (Art. 349, RPC) because the prosecution failed to prove the fourth element of the crime: that the second marriage had all the essential and formal requisites for validity. Rommel successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity inherent in the Marriage Certificate by presenting substantial evidence that the formal requisites—the authority of the solemnizing officer and the marriage ceremony (Art. 3, Family Code)—were absent, rendering the second marriage void ab initio.
However, the State’s Information charging Bigamy necessarily included the felony defined under Article 350 of the RPC (Contracting a Marriage Against Provisions of Laws) under the variance doctrine.
Rommel was convicted under Article 350, RPC, because the evidence proved the following elements:
- The accused contracted a marriage (the act of signing the certificate and going through the sham marriage with Maricar).
- The accused knew that the marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment. Rommel was legally married to Magdalena and this marriage was subsisting (Art. 41, Family Code). Furthermore, Rommel contracted the second marriage without the required prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage (Art. 40, Family Code), showing knowledge of the impediment and non-compliance with the law.
- The accused is not punishable under Article 349, RPC (as he was acquitted of Bigamy due to the void nature of the second marriage).
Thus, while the defects in the solemnization shielded Rommel from the penalty of Bigamy, his knowledge of the legal impediment (the existing first marriage) subjected him to liability under Article 350, RPC.
—–
#RommelGenioVsPeople #BigamyCase #Article349RPC #Article350RPC #VoidMarriage #EvidentiaryPresumptions #ReasonableDoubtStandard #BurdenOfProof #FamilyCodePH #PhilippineJurisprudencePhilippineLaw #CriminalLawPH #LegalDoctrine #SupremeCourtPH #CaseDigestPH #LawStudentPH #BarExam2026 #LegalEducationPH #JusticeSystemPH #RuleOfLawLawAndJustice #KnowYourRights #LegalCommunity #LawSchoolLife #LegalUpdates #JusticeMatters #LawLife #Philippines #LegalLearning #CourtCases
Leave a Reply