The defense presented a Certificate of Divorce[18] issued on 14 January 2008, to prove the fact of divorce.
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution waived the presentation of testimonial evidence and presented instead, the Marriage
Contract[19] between Redante and Maria Socorro, to prove the solemnization of their marriage on 31 August 1984, in
Angono, Rizal; and the Marriage Contract[20] of Redante and Fe to prove the solemnization of Redante's second
marriage on 29 December 1998, in Naga City. The prosecution also adopted the Certificate of Divorce [21] as its own
exhibit for the purpose of proving that the same was secured only on 14 January 2008.
The RTC Ruling
In its judgment, the RTC found Redante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy. The trial court
ratiocinated that Redante's conviction is the only reasonable conclusion for the case because of his failure to present
competent evidence proving the alleged divorce decree; his failure to establish the naturalization of Maria Socorro;
and his admission that he did not seek judicial recognition of the alleged divorce decree. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Redante Sarto y Misalucha guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
Bigamy punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
this Court hereby sentenced him an imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.[22]
Aggrieved, Redante appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's Judgment. The appellate court ratiocinated that assuming the
authenticity and due execution of the Certificate of Divorce, since the order of divorce or the divorce decree was not
presented, it could not ascertain whether said divorce capacitated Maria Socorro, and consequently Redante, to
remarry. It continued that Redante failed to present evidence that he had filed and had secured a judicial declaration
that his first marriage had been dissolved in accordance with Philippine laws prior to the celebration of his
subsequent marriage to Fe. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision provides:
WHEREFORE, the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court convicting appellant Redante Sarto y Misalucha of Bigamy
in Criminal Case No. 2007-0400, is AFFIRMED.[23]
Redante moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its 6 March 2013 resolution.
Hence, the present petition.
On 26 June 2013, the Court issued a Resolution[24] requiring the respondent Republic of the Philippines to file its
comment.
The OSG's Manifestation
In compliance with this Court's resolution, the respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its
Manifestation (in lieu of Comment)[25] advocating Redante's acquittal. The OSG argued that the RTC had convicted
Redante solely because of his failure to provide evidence concerning the date when Maria Socorro acquired
Canadian citizenship. It observed that Maria Socorro failed to provide the exact date when she acquired Canadian
citizenship because of the loss of her citizenship certificate at the time she took the witness stand. The OSG claimed,
however, that Redante was able to submit, although belatedly, a photocopy of Maria Socorro's Canadian citizenship
certificate as an attachment to his appellant's brief. The said certificate stated that Maria Socorro was already a
Canadian citizen as early as 1 April 1988; hence, the divorce decree which took effect on 1 November 1988 is valid.
The OSG further averred that substantial rights must prevail over the application of procedural rules.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED WHEN THEY FOUND PETITIONER REDANTE
SARTO y MISALUCHA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF BIGAMY.
THE COURT'S RULING
The petition is bereft of merit.
Elements of bigamy; burden of proving the
termination of the first marriage.
For a person to be convicted of bigamy, the following elements must concur: (1) that the offender has been legally
married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case of an absentee spouse, the absent