Previous 4 / 8 Next

Decision 4 G.R. No. 224742 In his Appeal, Prudencio reiterated his previous arguments and added that the case should be dismissed in view of the Affidavit of Desistance executed by Arlene. 21 In its June 30, 2015 Decision,22 the Court of Appeals denied Prudencio's appeal. It affirmed his conviction and modified the penalty: WHEREFORE, the 13 March 2012 Decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with' MODIFICATION on the penalty imposed. Appellant Prudencio De Guzman is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day ofprision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. Costs against appellant. SO ORDERED. 23 (Emphasis in the original) The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that all the elements of bigamy were present. It ruled that the prosecution's failure to offer Prudencio and Arlene's marriage license as evidence of their marriage does not strengthen Prudencio' s claim that his marriage with Arlene was void. 24 The Court of Appeals held that the presentation of the marriage license was not essential to establish the existence of marriage. The certified true copy of the Marriage Certificate, it ruled, was enough. 25 Similarly, the Court of Appeals found that the solemnizing officer's signature in the Marriage Certificate is not an essential requirement for marriage. Hence, its absence in the Marriage Certificate issued by the National Statistics Office does not invalidate the marriage. 26 The Court of Appeals declared that Prudencio could not unilaterally declare his marriage with Arlene void. Citing Article 40 27 of the Family Code, it explained that before he can remarry, a competent court must first issue a final judgment declaring his marriage void. 28 JJ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Id. at 28-29. Id at. 25-36. Id. at 36. Id. at 29-30. Id. at 30. Id. FAMILY CODE, art. 40 provides: ARTICLE 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. 28 Rollo, p. 31.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

De Guzman v. People

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 224742

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Aug 7, 2019

Year of decision: 2019

GBV Case Type

Bigamy

Nature of the case: The accused, being then legally married to one Arlene which marriage is still existing and has not been legally dissolved, contracted a second marriage with one Jean in Las Piñas City, which second marriage has all the essential and formal requisites for validity. The accused argued that his marriage with Arlene was void because the copy of their Marriage Contract, which was secured from the National Statistics Office, did not bear the solemnizing officer's signature. The Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy as the he absence of the solemnizing officer's signature in the Marriage Certificate renders the marriage void. It is worth noting that based on the trial court's findings, the discrepancy was merely inadvertent since a copy of the Marriage Certificate under the Local Civil Registry had been signed. Significantly, the accused cannot unilaterally declare his marriage void. The law provides that a judicial declaration of nullity is indispensable for the purposes of remarriage.

Summary of outcome: He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and pay the costs of suit.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: LEONEN, J.:

Long title: PRUDENCIO DE GUZMAN Y JUMAQUIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.DECISION

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 14.449743

Longitude: 120.982593

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

Prudencio De Guzman.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

De Guzman v. People

Primary Documents

Notifications