The constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent is not an empty platitude that can be overturned by a legal presumption seeking to establish guilt. An evidentiary presumption may be used as long as it will not relieve the prosecution of its burden of proving guilt and all elements of the crime with proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Contracting two [2] marriages is a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code’s Articles 349 – bigamy [penalty is prision mayor – 6 to 12 years] or 350 – marriage contracted against provisions of laws [penalty is prision correccional – 6 months to 6 years]. The elements of Bigamy are: [1] accused has been legally married; [2] first marriage has not been legally dissolved or other spouse is absent but could not yet be presumed dead; [3] contracting a second or subsequent marriage; [4] second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. While the elements of Article 350 are [1] accused contracts a marriage; [2] accused knows that the requirements of law for the marriage have not been complied with, or knows the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment; and [3] the accused is not among the persons who are included in Article 349.
The constitutional presumption of innocence and how the legal presumption of the correctness of the contents of a public document may be rebutted was applied in the bigamy case of Genio v. People, G.R. No. 261666, January 24, 2024.
In 2006, Rommel married Magdalena and begot three children. In 2013, they separated and Rommel married Maricar while the first marriage was subsisting. A criminal case for bigamy was filed. The prosecution presented one witness and the marriage certificates, which Rommel admitted. The defense presented three [3] witnesses that the mayor was not present, but the civil registrar who officiated the marriage and told them to sign without a ceremony. The trial court [RTC] convicted Rommel because the testimonies of defense witnesses cannot prevail over the prosecution’s evidence – second marriage certificate. The appellate court [CA] affirmed the conviction. It ruled that the accused cannot contradict the contents of the second marriage certificate and being a public document, he must present clear and convincing proof to disprove its contents. Accused appealed to the highest court.
Our Supreme Court ruled the prosecution proved the existence and authenticity of the marriage beyond reasonable doubt when the two marriage certificates were presented and admitted by the accused. Thus, it is correct for the RTC and CA to hold the Marriage Certificate as prima facie evidence of its contents, as allowed by Section 6, Rule 131, 2019 Rules of Court [if a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense, the existence of the basic fact must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt].
However, to rule that presumed regularity and accuracy of the marriage certificate may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence is plain error. That requirement is only applicable to civil cases, where the ultimate burden of persuasion may shift back and forth between plaintiff and defendant. It cannot be extended to criminal cases, where accused is presumed innocent and the State has the burden of proving guilt of the accused and each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
In criminal cases and under Section 6, Rule 131, substantial evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity. Given the prima facie evidence of regularity of marriage, the burden was shifted to the accused to prove the irregularity of the marriage. The shifted burden does not extend to the proof of innocence, but only requires substantial proof to rebut the presumption. While the prosecution was able to prove the truth of the entries of the marriage certificate using a legal presumption, the accused presented three [3] witnesses who testified that the Mayor never appeared to solemnize the marriage. This is sufficient substantial evidence to rebut the presumed regularity and correctness of entries in the Marriage Certificate in the criminal case. The prosecution’s failure to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt entitles accused to an acquittal for bigamy [Art. 349, RPC], but he is convicted of marriage contracted against provisions of laws [Art. 350, RPC] under the variance rule [where the evidence presented proved a crime different from what was charged, provided the elements of the proven crime is necessarily included in the crime charged]. Thus, only substantial proof is required to rebut the presumption of regularity.
