Petitioner contracted a bigamous marriage where he argued that actions for his crime of bigamy was barred by prescription as his second marriage was registered in the Office of the Civil Registry more the 15 years before the action against it was initiated. He argued that the discovery of his crime should be counted from the date he registered his second marriage, and the rule of constructive notice should apply as the registration to the Office of the Civil Registry was a notice to the world. That the petitioner was no intention to conceal the said second marriage.
Whether its discovery is deemed to have taken place from the time the offended party actually knew of the second marriage or from the time the document evidencing the subsequent marriage was registered with the Civil Registry consistent with the rule on constructive notice.
No, 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. 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.