RULE 129 EVIDENCE Sermonia v. CA, GR 109454, 1994

 Sermonia v. CA, GR 109454, 1994

Doctrine: The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property.

FACTS: On 26 May 1992, Jose C. Sermonia was charged with bigamy before the RTC of Pasig for contracting marriage with Ma. Lourdes Unson on 15 February 1975 while his prior marriage to Virginia C. Nievera remained valid and subsisting. Petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that his criminal liability has been extinguished by prescription. RTC denied motion to quash.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to the CA assailing that since the second marriage contract was duly registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar in 1975, such fact of registration makes it a matter of public record and thus constitutes notice to the offended party as of 1975, and that prescription commenced to run on the day the contract was registered.

For this reason, the information should have been filed on or before 1990. He also holds that the second marriage ceremony was held at Our Lady of Nativity Church in Marikina and was open to inspection by any interested party. 

The prosecution maintains that the prescriptive period does not begin from the commission of the crime but from the time of discovery by the complainant which was in July 1991. The CA dismissed the said petition hence this case.

ISSUE: WHETHER PRESCRIPTION APPLIES IN CASES OF BIGAMY?

HELD: NO. The rule on constructive notice in civil cases may be applied in criminal actions if the factual and legal circumstances warrant, BUT, it cannot apply in the crime of bigamy because a bigamous marriage is generally entered into by the offender in secrecy in order to conceal his legal impediment, that even though his second marriage may be contracted in an open place, it may be done so in a place and among people who do not know of his original subsisting marriage.

ISSUE: WHETHER PRESCRIPTION COMMENCES AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION?

HELD: NO. The Court held that *See Stated Doctrine.* To rule otherwise, then the prosecution of such offense would be impossible and would encourage a fearless violation of a social institution cherished and protected by law. Thus, when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well within the reglamentary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10 October 1975.