The Supreme Court acquitted Benito Somo, a grandfather who had been convicted of falsifying a birth certificate for his grandson, on 26 August 2026. In an en banc decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the Court overturned Somo’s convictions under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 21(b) of Republic Act No. 8552 (the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998). Somo had obtained a second birth certificate for his grandson, listing Somo and his wife as the child’s parents. The child’s biological father had signed a written agreement authorizing the arrangement to avoid confusion over the boy’s identity. The second certificate was later used for school enrollment and passport applications. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Somo guilty of simulation of birth, but the Supreme Court held that the two statutes punish the same offense and cannot be used to impose separate convictions for the same act. The Court emphasized that simulation of birth is a mala in se offense, requiring proof of criminal intent. Prosecutors must show not only that a false registration was made but also that the accused intended to deprive the child of his true identity and civil status. In Somo’s case, the Court found no evidence of such intent. It noted that the original birth certificate identifying the child’s biological parents remained in effect, and that Somo had later sought adoption and correction of the birth record. The Court also found no indication that Somo intended to defraud the government or conceal the child’s origins. The ruling underscores the necessity of establishing criminal intent in simulation‑of‑birth cases and affirms the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense.
Article source: The Daily Tribune | Image credit: The Daily Tribune