MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a grandfather charged with simulation of birth, ruling that the offense requires proof of criminal intent and that an accused cannot be convicted separately under two laws for the same act of falsely registering a child’s birth.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC En Banc acquitted Benito A. Somo of charges under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Section 21(b) of Republic Act No. 8552, or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998.

Somo was accused of securing a second birth certificate for his grandson, naming himself and his wife as the child’s parents. The child’s biological father, who used two different names, had earlier authorized the arrangement in writing to avoid confusion over his son’s identity.

The second birth certificate was used to enroll the child in school and obtain a passport.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Somo guilty of separate offenses under the RPC and RA 8552. The high court reversed their rulings.

The SC explained that Article 347 of the RPC and Section 21(b) of RA 8552 punish the same offense. While the RPC penalizes simulation of birth without defining how it is committed, the Domestic Adoption Act later clarified the offense by defining it as tampering with a child’s birth record in the civil registry.

The court held that RA 8552 did not create a separate crime but merely clarified an offense already punishable under the RPC. Thus, a person cannot be prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense.

In Somo’s case, both charges arose from the same birth certificate, false registration and claim of parentage.

The SC also clarified that simulation of birth is a crime mala in se — an inherently wrongful act that requires proof of criminal intent — rather than mala prohibita, or an act prohibited by law regardless of intent.

It said the classification of an offense does not depend solely on which law penalizes it. Instead, the legislature may classify an offense as mala prohibita based on the purpose and wording of the statute.

The court said simulation of birth is inherently wrong because it affects a child’s legal identity, family relationships and constitutional rights, including the sanctity of family life and parents’ primary right and duty to raise their children.

However, the mere registration of a false birth certificate does not automatically establish criminal liability. Prosecutors must also prove that the accused intended to make the child lose their true identity and status.

In Somo’s case, the SC found that although the false registration was established, the prosecution failed to prove criminal intent.

The child’s original birth certificate, which identified his biological parents, remained intact. The court also noted that the second certificate was used for school enrollment and travel documents, and there was no showing that Somo benefited from the registration or that anyone was harmed.

The child’s biological father had authorized the arrangement, while Somo later filed a petition for adoption and correction of the birth record.

The SC found no intent on Somo’s part to defraud the State or conceal his grandson’s origins. After the child’s parents separated, Somo assumed a parental role to provide stability, legal documentation and access to essential services.

The court stressed:

“As recognized by the Legislature, ‘[s]imulation of birth is resorted to by many well-meaning and mostly poor Filipinos.’ Whether due to lack of knowledge of legal procedures, as a means to navigate the burdens of bureaucratic systems, or out of sheer necessity in the face of flawed and inaccessible government services, acts such as simulating the birth of a child are more often rooted in survival and compassion, rather than criminal design. . . . Our criminal justice system cannot be weaponized against those who, far from intending harm, acted out of compassion and duty.”

Separate opinions

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that simulation of birth is mala in se, saying that falsely recording a child as the biological offspring of people who are not the child’s parents is inherently wrong. He emphasized the State’s duty to protect family life and recognize parents’ primary right to raise their children.

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier also agreed with Somo’s acquittal, noting that the biological parents expressly consented to the second birth certificate through the father’s affidavit of authorization.

Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario disagreed that the RPC and RA 8552 punish the same offense. He said fictitious birth registration is one way of committing simulation of birth under the RPC, while under RA 8552, the fictitious registration itself constitutes the offense. He maintained that the same act may give rise to separate and distinct crimes.

Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez agreed that Somo should be acquitted for lack of criminal intent, which is required for an offense mala in se. He said the child’s best interests may help determine whether the accused acted in bad faith and that the circumstances showed no malicious or fraudulent intent.