decree required to prove the fact of divorce is the judgment itself as rendered by the foreign court and not a mere certification. Second, assuming the certificate of divorce may be considered as the divorce decree, it was not accompanied by a certification issued by the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in Canada, as required under Section 24 of Rule 132. Lastly, no copy of the alleged Canadian law was presented by the defense. Thus, it could not be reasonably determined whether the subject divorce decree was in accord with Maria Socorro's national law. Further, since neither the divorce decree nor the alleged Canadian law was satisfactorily demonstrated, the type of divorce supposedly secured by Maria Socorro - whether an absolute divorce which terminates the marriage or a limited divorce which merely suspends it[36] - and whether such divorce capacitated her to remarry could not also be ascertained. As such, Redante failed to prove his defense that he had the capacity to remarry when he contracted a subsequent marriage to Fe. His liability for bigamy is, therefore, now beyond question. This Court is not unmindful of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. Indeed, in Republic v. Orbecido,[37] a case invoked by Redante to support his cause, the Court recognized that the legislative intent behind the said provision is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse under the laws of his or her country. The Court is also not oblivious of the fact that Maria Socorro had already remarried in Canada on 5 August 2000. These circumstances, however, can never justify the reversal of Redante's conviction. In Orbecido, as in Redante's case, the alien spouse divorced her Filipino spouse and remarried another. The Filipino spouse then filed a petition for authority to remarry under paragraph 2 of Article 26. His petition was granted by the RTC. However, this Court set aside said decision by the trial court after finding that the records were bereft of competent evidence concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of the alien spouse. The Court reiterated therein the rules regarding the recognition of the foreign divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it, as well as the necessity to show that the divorce decree capacitated his former spouse to remarry. [38] Finally, the Court notes that the OSG was miserably misguided when it claimed that the sole reason for the RTC's judgment of conviction was Redante's failure to provide evidence, during trial, of the date Maria Socorro acquired Canadian citizenship. An examination of the 18 May 2009 judgment would reveal that the trial court rendered the said decision after finding that there was lack of any competent evidence with regard to the divorce decree [39] and the national law governing his first wife,[40] not merely because of the lack of evidence concerning the effectivity date of Maria Socorro's naturalization. Thus, even if the Court were to indulge the OSG and consider Maria Socorro's citizenship certificate, which was a mere photocopy and filed belatedly, it would not have any effect significant enough to produce a judgment of acquittal. The fact that Redante failed to prove the existence of the divorce and that it was validly acquired prior to the celebration of the second marriage still subsists. WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision, dated 31 July 2012, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 32635 which affirmed the 18 May 2009 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Naga City, in Criminal Case No. 2007-0400 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner Redante Sarto y Misalucha is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty 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. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur. April 23, 2018 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that on February 28, 2018 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on April 23, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Very truly yours, WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court