JOSE C. SERMONIA vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Eleventh
Division, HON. DEOGRACIAS FELIZARDO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Pasig, Br. 151, and JOSEPH SINSAY, G.R. No. 109454 June 14, 1994.
Principle
Of Constructive Notice Not Applicable In Bigamy For Purposes Of Prescription..
“x x
x.
“While we concede the point that the rule on
constructive notice in civil cases may be applied in criminal actions if the
factual and legal circumstances so warrant,[1]
we agree with the view expounded by the Court of Appeals that it cannot apply
in the crime of bigamy notwithstanding the possibility of its being more
favorable to the accused.
The
appellate court succinctly explains —
Argued by the petitioner is that the principle of
constructive notice should be applied in the case at bar, principally citing in
support of his stand, the cases of People v. Reyes (175 SCRA 597); and People
v. Dinsay (40 SCRA 50).
This Court is of the view that the principle of constructive
notice should not be applied in regard to the crime of bigamy as judicial
notice may be taken of the fact that a bigamous marriage is generally entered
into by the offender in secrecy from the spouse of the previous subsisting
marriage. Also, a bigamous marriage is generally entered into in a place where
the offender is not known to be still a married person, in order to conceal his
legal impediment to contract another marriage.
In the case of real property, the registration of any
transaction involving any right or interest therein is made in the Register of
Deeds of the place where the said property is located. Verification in the
office of the Register of Deeds concerned of the transactions involving the said
property can easily be made by any interested party. In the case of a bigamous
marriage, verification by the offended person or the authorities of the same
would indeed be quite difficult as such a marriage may be entered into in a
place where the offender is not known to be still a married person.
Be it noted that
in the criminal cases cited by the petitioner wherein constructive notice was
applied, involved therein were land or property disputes and certainly,
marriage is not property.
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 (sic).
Considering such concealment of the bigamous marriage by the
offender, if the prescriptive period for the offense of bigamy were to be
counted from the date of registration thereof, the prosecution of the violators
of the said offense would almost be impossible. The interpretation urged by the
petitioner would encourage fearless violations of a social institution
cherished and protected by law.[2]
To
this we may also add that the rule on constructive notice will make
de
rigueur the routinary inspection or verification of the marriages listed in the
National Census Office and in various local civil registries all over the
country to make certain that no second or even third marriage has been
contracted without the knowledge of the legitimate spouse. This is too
formidable a task to even contemplate.
More importantly,
while Sec. 52 of P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) provides for
constructive notice to all persons of every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien,
attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land
filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or
city where the land to which it relates lies from the time of such registering,
filing or entering, there is no counterpart provision either in Act
No.
3753 (Act to Establish a Civil Register) or in Arts. 407 to 413 of the Civil
Code, which leads us to the conclusion that there is no legal basis for
applying the constructive notice rule to the documents registered in the Civil
Register.
Finally,
petitioner would want us to believe that there was no concealment at all
because his marriage contract with Ms. Unson was recorded in the Civil Registry
which is open to all and sundry for inspection. We cannot go along with his
argument because why did he indicate in the marriage contract that he was “single”
thus obviously hiding his true status as a married man? Or for that matter, why
did he not simply tell his first wife about the subsequent marriage in Marikina
so that everything would be out in the open. The answer is obvious: He knew
that no priest or minister would knowingly perform or authorize a bigamous
marriage as this would subject him to punishment under the Marriage Law.[3]
Obviously,
petitioner had no intention of revealing his duplicity to his first spouse and
gambled instead on the probability that she or any third party would ever go to
the local civil registrar to inquire. In the meantime, through the simple
expedience of having the second marriage recorded in the local civil registry,
he has set into motion the running of the fifteen-year prescriptive period
against the unwary and the unsuspecting victim of his philandering.
Were we to put our imprimatur to the theory advanced by
petitioner, in all likelihood we would be playing right into the hands of
philanderers. For we would be equating the contract of marriage with ordinary
deeds of conveyance and other similar documents without due regard for the
stability of marriage as an inviolable social institution, the preservation of
which is a primary concern of our society.
X x x.”
Notes:
[1]
People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 74226-27, 27 July 1989, 175 SCRA 597.
[2] See Note 6, pp. 30-31.
[3] Art. 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. — Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law (The Revised Penal Code).
[2] See Note 6, pp. 30-31.
[3] Art. 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. — Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law (The Revised Penal Code).
