SERMONIA, vs. CA G.R. No. 109454 June 14, 1994
Presicription - - Bigamy
Facts:
On
26 May 1992, petitioner Jose C. Sermonia was charged with bigamy before
the RTC of Pasig, Br. 151, 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 for bigamy has been extinguished by prescription.
In
the order of 1 October 1992, respondent judge denied the motion to
quash. On 27 October 1992, he likewise denied the motion to reconsider
his order of denial.
Petitioner challenged the above orders before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and prohibition. In the assailed decision of 21 January 1993, his petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
In
this recourse, petitioner contends that his criminal liability for
bigamy has been obliterated by prescription. He avers 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 whole world. The
offended party therefore is considered to have had constructive notice
of the subsequent marriage as of 1975; hence, prescription commenced to
run on the day the marriage contract was registered. For this reason,
the corresponding information for bigamy should have been filed on or
before 1990 and not only in 1992.
On
the other hand, the prosecution maintains that the prescriptive period
does not begin from the commission of the crime but from the time of
discovery by complainant which was in July 1991.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution of Jose C. Sermonia for bigamy has already prescribed.
Held:
No.
The non-application to the crime of bigamy of the principle of
constructive notice is not contrary to the well entrenched policy that
penal laws should be construed liberally in favor of the accused. To
compute the prescriptive period for the offense of bigamy from
registration thereof would amount to almost absolving the offenders
thereof for liability therefor. While the celebration of the bigamous
marriage may be said to be open and made of public record by its
registration, the offender however is not truthful as he conceals from
the officiating authority and those concerned the existence of his
previous subsisting marriage. He does not reveal to them that he is
still a married person. He likewise conceals from his legitimate spouse
his bigamous marriage. And for these, he contracts the bigamous marriage
in a place where he is not known to be still a married person. And such
a place may be anywhere, under which circumstance, the discovery of the
bigamous marriage is rendered quite difficult and would take time. It
is therefore reasonable that the prescriptive period for the crime of
bigamy should be counted only from the day on which the said crime was
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agency.