Sarto v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Redante Sarto y Misalucha (Redante) was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Fe R. Aguila (Fe) on December 29, 1998, while his first marriage to Maria Socorro G. Negrete (Maria Socorro) on August 31, 1984, remained legally undissolved. Procedural History: Redante pleaded not guilty but admitted contracting two marriages, claiming his first marriage was dissolved by a foreign divorce. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Redante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy, holding that he failed to present competent evidence of the divorce decree and its recognition under Philippine law. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) advocated for Redante's acquittal, arguing that the divorce decree was valid as Maria Socorro had acquired Canadian citizenship and obtained a divorce prior to Redante's second marriage. The Petition: Redante filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred when they found petitioner Redante Sarto y Misalucha guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. Whether the divorce obtained by Maria Socorro in Canada legally dissolved her marriage to Redante, thereby capacitating him to contract a subsequent marriage.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is 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.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the trial and appellate courts erred in finding petitioner Redante Sarto y Misalucha guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy: The Court ruled that the petition is bereft of merit. For a conviction of bigamy, four elements must concur: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved; (3) the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. Redante admitted contracting two marriages, but his defense rested on the alleged termination of his first marriage through a foreign divorce. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging the existence of a fact, thus, Redante was incumbent upon to prove that the divorce was validly obtained in accordance with Maria Socorro's country's national law. His failure to do so meant he did not prove the termination of his first marriage prior to his second marriage. On the issue of whether the divorce obtained by Maria Socorro in Canada legally dissolved her marriage to Redante, thereby capacitating him to contract a subsequent marriage: The Court held that Redante failed to prove his capacity to contract a subsequent marriage. A foreign divorce decree does not have automatic effect in the Philippines and requires recognition by Philippine courts. To be recognized, the divorce decree must be proven as a fact and its conformity to the foreign law must be demonstrated. This requires presenting the divorce decree itself, not merely a certificate, and proving the foreign law under which it was secured, typically through authenticated copies attested by the officer having legal custody, and certified by the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in the foreign country. The certificate of divorce presented by Redante was insufficient as it was not the divorce decree itself, lacked the required consular certification, and was not accompanied by a copy of the Canadian law. Therefore, the Court could not ascertain whether the divorce was absolute or limited, or if it capacitated Maria Socorro to remarry. Consequently, Redante failed to prove his defense that he had the capacity to remarry when he contracted his second marriage to Fe, making his liability for bigamy beyond question.
Main Doctrine
A party invoking a foreign divorce decree as a defense against bigamy must prove its existence and validity according to the national law of the foreign spouse, and present the divorce decree itself, not merely a certificate, along with proof of the foreign law, typically through authenticated copies and certifications from diplomatic or consular officers.