Previous 7 / 8 Next

Decision G.R. No. 224742 7 which both she and Prudencio had agreed to reconcile. 43 This Affidavit of Desistance cannot proiYe the nonexistence of all the elements of bigamy. Moreover, the Affidavit of Desistance was executed 13 months after the accused's convictibn in the trial court. As the Court of Appeals held, an afterthought merits no probative value. 44 In People v. Dela Cerna: 45 An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement, executed by a complainant in a criminal or administrative case, that he or she is discontinuing or disavowing the action filed upon his or her complaint for whatever reason he or she may cite. A survey of our jurisprudence reveals that the court attaches no persuasive value to a desistance, especially when executed as an aft~rthought. 46 1 Petitioner has not raised any substantial ground for this Court to grant the relief he seeks. WHEREFORE, the Verified Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' June 30, 2015 Decision and April 21, 2016 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 35209 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Prudencio De Guzman y Jumaquio is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy. 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. 1 1 I SO ORDERED. , WE CONCUR: Associate .\J.stice Chairperson 43 44 45 46 Rollo, p. 16. Id. at 35. 439 Phil. 394 (2002) [Per J. Corona, En Banc]. Id. at 405. Associate Justice

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