Hernandez v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 249683. January 22, 2020.]

SOCORRO U. HERNANDEZ, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JAIME L. BALANSAY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 January 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 249683 (Socorro U. Hernandez v. People of the Philippines and Jaime L. Balansay). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the December 20, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 8, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38763 for failure of petitioner Socorro U. Hernandez (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy.

The Court further NOTES the erratum dated October 29, 2019 by petitioner's counsel, stating that in the urgent motion for additional time to file petition for review on certiorari, he mistakenly averred that he has until December 22, 2019 within which to file the said petition when the correct deadline should have been on November 6, 2019 as he received a copy of the October 8, 2019 Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 22, 2019. HTcADC

As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements 4 of the crime charged, as it was shown that at the time of the civil wedding between petitioner and private respondent Jaime L. Balansay on March 25, 1997, the former's first marriage to Romulo Santiago Arsenio was still valid and subsisting, and that the same was only annulled on January 7, 1999. 5 Records reveal that the prosecution was able to successfully disprove the certified true copies of the October 17, 1977 Decision 6 and the certifications 7 issued by Atty. Jerome Victor, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, purportedly showing that petitioner's first marriage was annulled on October 17, 1977. 8 Settled is the rule that while it is true that the entries in public documents or records enjoy the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and that its issuance was done in the regular conduct of official business, said presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty, 9 which the prosecution was able to discharge in this case. Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will not be reviewed on appeal, save for certain exceptions, 10 none of which obtain in this case. CAIHTE

SO ORDERED. (Reyes, A., Jr. and Hernando, JJ., on official leave.)"

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 23-71.

2.Id. at 32-38. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.

3.Id. at 127-129.

4. The elements of the crime of bigamy are the following: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. (Montañez v. Cipriano, 697 Phil. 586, 596 [2012].)

5. See rollo, p. 88.

6.Id. at 337-338. Penned by Judge Francisco C. Castro, Jr.

7. Not attached to the rollo.

8. See rollo, pp. 87-88.

9.Alcantara v. Alcantara, 558 Phil. 192, 203-204 (2007).

10. See Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012).