Bigamy’s point of reckoning

Bigamy’s point of reckoning | Daily Tribune

I guess everyone knows what bigamy is. It is contracting a subsequent marriage even while the present one subsists. One who has an interest in filing a bigamy case must file it within the prescriptive period of 15 years.

But where is the 15-year period reckoned from? Is it from constructive notice or actual knowledge? Constructive notice is where the law presumes a person knows a certain fact because it is recorded in public records.

For instance, in bigamy, the second marriage is registered with the civil registrar. Thus, everyone is deemed to know about this marriage because of the fact of registration, even if there is no actual knowledge of it. Thus, if the action for bigamy was instituted 15 years after the recording of the second marriage, said action should have already prescribed.

This was the issue in one case. The Supreme Court, though, did not rule that way. Instead, it decreed that “preliminarily, the Court notes that prescription does not bar the instant action. While the bigamous marriage was celebrated in 1999, it was discovered only by the private complainants in 2020, who filed the instant case in 2022.

“Apart from A’s allegation, he failed to prove that the private complainants were aware of the bigamous marriage prior to 2020. As held in the case of Sermonia v. Court of Appeals, the rule on constructive notice cannot apply in the crime of bigamy, notwithstanding that its application may be more favorable to the accused. Hence, the prescriptive period for the offense should be counted not from the registration of the bigamous marriage but from the discovery thereof.

“This is because in bigamy, the second marriage is generally held in secret, which renders the discovery thereof difficult. The application of constructive notice would then render the prosecution of the violators of the crime almost impossible. In this case, the bigamous marriage was held in Bukidnon, away from A and his first wife’s residence in Misamis Oriental.

“A alleged and B corroborated that together with the former, his mother, and private complainant C went to her house to ask her to go to her residence in Medina, Misamis Oriental, to formally ask for her hand in marriage. This, however, does not translate to actual knowledge of the marriage ceremony, as even A and B admitted that none of their family members were present during their civil marriage ceremony.

“Even if we are to accept that C was aware of the marriage, no similar allegation was made as to the other private complainant, D. At most, the defense merely alleged that D had a hand in the preparation and filing of the birth certificate of A’s children. No specific allegation was made as to how she was privy to the information that A married B.

“In here, as the prosecution proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof shifted to A to substantiate his defense of actual knowledge on the part of the private complainants, which renders the prosecution of the crime barred by prescription. The crime charged is bigamy, a public crime defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.”

The quoted portion of the decision is from SC G.R. 272844 (24 February 2025). The parties’ names are redacted.