-four significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this case -procedural aspects are only applicable during trial when parties have presented their evidence and not during the initial stage of proceedings, such in this case that the petition to establish filiation has only been filed.
-CA erred in observing that that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case—the first procedural aspect in a paternity case prima facie case
-built by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in the initiatory pleading Section 4 of the Rule on DNA evidence
Rule on DNA Evidence
RIVERA 2013
Page 81
elements for reliability and validity (i.e., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as the probative value of DNA evidenceSection 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence
-merely provides for conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing Court order for blood testing equivalent to “search” under the Constitution.
-there must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or “good cause” for the holding of the test
The Supreme Court of Louisiana explained:
“Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing.”
The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits.
Teves v. People (20011)
G.R. No. 188775
Petitioner: Cenon R. Tevez
Respondent: People of the Philippines and Danilo Bongalon Facts:
- Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the January 21, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Malolos City which found petitioner Cenon R. Tevez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
- On November 26, 1992, a marriage was solemnized between Cenon Tevez and Thelma Jaime-Tevez at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.
- After the marriage, Thelma worked abroad. In 2002, she came home to the Philippines for vacation and she was informed that her husband had contracted marriage with a certain Edita Calderon.
- Based on the copy of Certificate of Marriage from the National Statistics Office, Cenon and Edita married on December 10, 2001 at the Divine Trust Consulting Services, Meycauayan, Bulacan.
RIVERA 2013
Page 82
- On February 13, 2006, the uncle of Thelma, Danilo Bongalon, filed before the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos City a complaint accusing petitioner of committing bigamy.
- Petitioner was charged with bigamy on June 8, 2006.
1. On May 4, 2006, the Regional Trial Court Branch 130 in Caloocan City rendered a decision declaring the marriage of petitioner and Thelma null and void on the ground that Thelma is physically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. On June 27, 2006, said decision became final by virtue of a Certification of Finality.
2. On August 15, 2007, the trial court rendered its decision finding Cenon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy.
3. Petitioner appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals contending that the court erred in not ruling that his criminal action or liability has already been extinguished.
4. On January 21, 2009, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issue:
1. Whether or not petitioner committed bigamy
Held/Ratio
Yes. Petitioner has committed bigamy
Petitioner claims that since his previous marriage was declared null and void, “there is in effect no marriage at all, and thus, there is no bigamy to speak of.”He differentiates a previous valid or voidable marriage from a marriage null and void ab initio, and posits that the former requires a judicial dissolution before one can validly contract a second marriage but a void marriage, for the same purpose, need not be judicially determined.
Petitioner further contends that the ruling of the Court in Mercado v. Tanis inapplicable in his case because in the Mercado case the prosecution for bigamy was initiated before the declaration of nullity of marriage was filed. In petitioner’s case, the first marriage had already been legally dissolved at the time the bigamy case was filed in court.
The instant case has all the elements of the crime of bigamy. Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the conviction of petitioner.
A marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void. The remarrying spouse must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. A judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
The crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10 December 2001 when he contracted a second marriage with Edita. The finality on 27 June 2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of his previous marriage to Thelma cannot be made to retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage.