“Because the presumption in favor of the Marriage Certificate has been rebutted, its contents cannot be presumed to be true, especially those matters which were denied by the defense witnesses”
(Last of 3 parts)
Considering that “the prosecution has proven the basic fact, i.e., the Marriage Certificate, with evidence beyond reasonable doubt…, [i]t therefore follows that the burden of ‘going forward’ with evidence was shifted to Rommel.
“The nature of the burden that was shifted to the accused is where the controversy lies in the case at hand.”
“The RTC and CA required Rommel to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumed regularity and accuracy of the Marriage Certificate.
“This is plain error. In criminal proceedings and in accordance with Section 6, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, substantial evidence is sufficient for Rommel to rebut the presumption against him.”
“A contrary ruling would shift the burden of proving his innocence to Rommel and relieve the State of its duty of persuasion, in violation of Rommel’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the crime charged.
“Moreover…, the Court finds that Rommel’s evidence was substantial and sufficient to overturn the presumption in favor of the Marriage Certificate.”
“Because the presumption in favor of the Marriage Certificate has been rebutted, its contents cannot be presumed to be true, especially those matters which were denied by the defense witnesses… [T]hat is, the Marriage Certificate is no longer a substitute to the requirement for the prosecution to prove the existence of the essential and formal requisites of the second marriage…”
“[I]nstead, the latter continues to be a triable fact in issue, and the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove it with evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
“This raises the question of whether the prosecution was able to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt, that the second marriage… has all the essential and formal requisites for its validity.”
“[T]he State (prosecution) opted not to present additional evidence on rebuttal… [and] measured against the testimonies of [the defense witnesses], [and] it is undeniable that the State did not muster enough evidence to prove that the second marriage has all the essential and formal requisites for its validity.”
“The inescapable conclusion is that the State failed to overcome the burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each element of Bigamy against Rommel.”
“Notwithstanding the conclusion that Rommel cannot be convicted of Bigamy, the Court nevertheless finds him guilty of violating Article 350 (Marriages Contracted Against Provisions of Laws) of the RPC.”
“[T]he act penalized in Article 350 of the RPC is subsumed or included in the crime charged, which is Bigamy as defined in Article 349 of the same Code.”
“In accordance with the variance doctrine under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the accused may be convicted of a crime based on the prosecution’ s evidence that is different from the crime charged, if the crime proved is included in the crime charged.”
“[B]y signing the Marriage Certificate and going through a sham marriage with Maricar… knowing that he was previously married to Magdalena… Rommel violated Article 350 of the RPC” (G.R. 261666, Jan 24, 2024).
