(Part 1)
“The Supreme Court disagreed with the RTC and the CA, and declared that ‘[t]he prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to warrant Rommel’s conviction for Bigamy’”
The Supreme Court explained for the first time in the case of Genio v. People the application of Section 6, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, penned by Justice Henry Jean Paul Inting in 2024.
The Court extensively discussed the nature of evidentiary presumptions in relation to the Constitutional rights of an accused.
Rommel Genio (Rommel) was charged with the crime of Bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Maricar Galapon while being legally married to Magdalena Esler Genio (Magdalena).
After the arraignment and during pre-trial the prosecution and defense stipulated on the existence and authenticity of the Marriage Certificate between Rommel and Maricar Santos Galapon (Maricar).
During trial, the prosecution presented Magdalena who testified that she secured a copy of the Birth Certificate of the child of Rommel and Maricar, and that she also obtained from the Philippine Statistics Authority a certified true copy of the Marriage Certificate between Rommel and Maricar.
In the Marriage Certificate of Rommel and Maricar, it was stated that the two were married on Sept. 7, 2013, before the Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, at his office and in the presence of three witnesses.
Rommel did not deny the existence of the Marriage Certificate issued for his subsequent (second) marriage to Maricar.
“However, the defense argued that Rommel’s second marriage was void ab initio because it was never solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and there was no wedding ceremony to celebrate the marriage.
“Hence, Rommel may not be convicted of Bigamy because of the absence of the fourth element of the crime…”
Two other witnesses aside from Maricar testified that “she did not see the Municipal Mayor in attendance, but she saw her relatives and an employee from the Municipal Hall of Guimba, who prepared the Marriage Certificate to be signed by Rommel and Maricar… [and] there was no exchange of vows and wedding rings between Rommel and Maricar…”
“[T]he RTC rendered its Judgment… convicting Rommel of Bigamy upon the finding that all the elements thereof have been duly proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
“The RTC explained that the testimonies of the defense witnesses cannot prevail over the prosecution’s documentary evidence, which consisted of public records…”
On appeal to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals affirmed Rommel’s conviction by the RTC.
“Rommel argues that his marriage to Maricar was not officiated by a person who is duly authorized to solemnize marriages, considering that the Municipal Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, never appeared on September 7, 2013… [and] Rommel further submits that [there was] no marriage ceremony…”
“[T]he sole issue before the [Supreme] Court is whether the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the second marriage, i.e., that between Rommel and Maricar, has all the essential and formal requisites for its validity, thus warranting Rommel’s conviction for the crime of Bigamy.”
“The proceedings a quo [in the Regional Trial Court] readily reveal that the issues in the present case are founded on the prosecution’s use of an evidentiary presumption against Rommel, i.e., that the Marriage Certificate, being a public record, is prima facie evidence of its contents, and may therefore serve as proof that the second marriage has all the essential requisites for its validity.”
“Both the RTC and the CA relied on the Marriage Certificate in holding that the prosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Rommel committed Bigamy.”
The Supreme Court disagreed with the RTC and the CA, and declared that “[t]he prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to warrant Rommel’s conviction for Bigamy.”
“Section 6, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, 82 or the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, embodies the rule that must be observed by the prosecution when it seeks to utilize an evidentiary presumption to establish the guilt of the accused, viz:
SEC. 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases.
— If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt.”
(To be continued)
