Open secret

A criminal complaint must be lodged within a certain prescribed period or it cannot be filed anymore. In this case of bigamy for example, the crime prescribes in 15 years. When will the said 15 years start to run? This is the question raised by Paul in the case of bigamy filed by his first wife Lourdes.

Paul and Lourdes got married when they finished high school, having been both convinced that they were meant for each other. But as in any young, immature love, their marriage failed the test of time. In fact, it lasted only a few years as they went their separate ways. Paul went to Manila to try his luck, while Lourdes remained in the province.

In Manila, Paul met Mia and fell in love for the second time. This time, the more mature and experienced Paul was surer that his feelings for Mia were the real thing. So he decided to marry Mia in Manila despite the fact that his marriage to Lourdes was still valid and subsisting.

But 17 years later, Lourdes learned about Paul’s second marriage to Mia so she immediately filed a case for bigamy against Paul. Paul on the other hand, contended that his criminal liability for bigamy prescribed or was obliterated by the passage of time since the crime of bigamy prescribes in 15 years. Paul averred that the 15-year period must be counted from the time that his second marriage contract was registered in the Office of the Civil Registrar because such fact of registration makes the marriage a matter of public record and, thus, a notice to the whole world. Since Lourdes filed the complaint for bigamy 17 years after the registration of the second marriage contract, Paul insisted that the complaint for bigamy had prescribed and should be dismissed. Is Paul correct?

No. The 15-year prescriptive period of the crime of bigamy commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.

The principle of constructive notice should not be applied in the crime of bigamy. To compute the prescriptive period for the offense from registration of the bigamous marriage would amount to almost absolving the offenders thereof of liability.

While the celebration of the bigamous marriage may be said to be open and made of public record by its registration, the offender is usually not truthful as he conceals the existence of his previous subsisting marriage from the officiating authority and those concerned. He does not reveal to them that he is a married person. Also, he contracts the bigamous marriage in a place where he is not known to be married. Such a place may be anywhere, and therefore, the discovery of the bigamous marriage is rendered quite difficult and would take time. It is, therefore, more reasonable that the prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy be counted only from the day on which the said crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Sermonia vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454 June 14, 1994).

E-mail: [email protected]