Double birth simulation conviction struck down

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that simulation of birth is a crime requiring proof of criminal intent and that a person cannot be convicted twice under separate laws for the same act of falsely registering a child’s birth.

In an en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa released recently, the high tribunal acquitted Benito A. Somo, who had been convicted by lower courts of simulation of birth under both Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 21(b) of Republic Act (RA) 8552, or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998.

Simulation of birth involves tampering with civil registry records to falsely register a child as the biological offspring of someone who is not the child’s actual parent, thereby affecting the child’s identity and legal status.

The case stemmed from Somo’s registration of a second birth certificate for his grandson, naming himself and his wife as the child’s parents. The arrangement had been authorized in writing by the child’s biological father, who used two different names, to avoid confusion over the boy’s identity.

The second birth certificate was later used for the child’s passport application and school enrollment.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Somo under both the RPC and RA 8552, but the Supreme Court reversed the rulings.

The SC held that Article 347 of the RPC and Section 21(b) of RA 8552 punish the same offense. While the RPC penalizes simulation of birth, the Domestic Adoption Act clarified the offense by defining it as tampering with a birth record in the civil registry. The later law did not create a separate crime.

Punishing Somo under both provisions for the same act violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, the Court said.

The SC also clarified that simulation of birth is mala in se, or inherently wrong, and therefore requires proof of criminal intent. It said the classification of a crime does not depend solely on which law penalizes it, but on the nature of the offense and the legislature’s purpose and language.