G.R. No. 109454 - Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals

The petitioner, Jose C. Sermonia, was charged with bigamy for purportedly contracting a second marriage while his first marriage with Virginia C. Nievera was still subsisting.
The alleged bigamous marriage was with Ma. Lourdes Unson on February 15, 1975, a fact that was later recorded in the Civil Registry.
Bigamy, defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, is a crime punishable by prision mayor and carries a fifteen-year prescriptive period for its prosecution.

An information charging bigamy was filed on May 26, 1992, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 151.
Petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the criminal liability for bigamy had been extinguished by prescription.
The trial court denied the motion on October 1, 1992, and on October 27, 1992, the motion for reconsideration was also denied.
The petitioner subsequently elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals using a petition for certiorari and prohibition, which was dismissed on January 21, 1993, for lack of merit.

The second marriage contract was registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar, leading the petitioner to argue that such registration served as constructive notice to the world regarding his marital status.
The petitioner implicitly admitted to contracting a bigamous marriage by not denying his valid first marriage to Virginia C. Nievera.
The prosecution contended that the prescriptive period for bigamy must be computed from the date the crime was discovered (July 1991) by the offended party or the authorities, rather than from the registration date of the second marriage.

The facts underscore that bigamous marriages are characteristically performed in secrecy; the offender deliberately conceals his marital status to avoid detection by his legitimate spouse and the officiating authorities.
Although the marriage contract was recorded in a public civil registry, its registration does not negate the deliberate concealment of the petitioner’s continued marital tie with his first spouse.
The practice of indicating “single” on the marriage contract exemplifies the offender’s deception and intention to hide his true status.

Whether the prescriptive period for the offense of bigamy should begin on the date of registration of the second marriage (based on the rule of constructive notice) or on the actual discovery of the crime by the offended party/authorities.

Whether the principle of constructive notice, routinely applied in civil cases (especially involving real property transactions), can be extended to criminal actions such as bigamy.
The issue also considers if applying the constructive notice rule in bigamy cases would, in effect, jeopardize the timely prosecution of offenders and undermine the social institution of marriage.

Whether the deliberate concealment by the petitioner in contracting a bigamous marriage, including misrepresenting his marital status by declaring himself “single,” affects the computation of the prescriptive period.