Prescriptive Period Rules for Bigamy Cases in the Philippines

Introduction

Bigamy, as defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines, is the act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage before the termination or annulment of a prior valid marriage. It is classified as a public crime, meaning it can be prosecuted by the State even without a private complaint, and carries a penalty of prision mayor (imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years). The prescriptive period, also known as the statute of limitations, refers to the time frame within which the State must initiate criminal prosecution for the offense. Failure to file charges within this period results in the extinction of the right to prosecute, barring the case from judicial proceedings.

The rules on prescription for bigamy are primarily governed by Articles 90, 91, and 94 of the RPC, supplemented by jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. These provisions ensure that prosecutions are timely, balancing the accused's right to a fair trial against the State's interest in punishing crimes. This article comprehensively discusses the prescriptive period for bigamy, including its duration, commencement, interruptions, special considerations, and relevant case law.

Legal Basis

The prescriptive periods for crimes under the RPC are outlined in Article 90, which categorizes them based on the penalty imposable:

Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or reclusion temporal: 20 years.
Crimes punishable by prision mayor: 10 years.
Crimes punishable by prision correccional, suspension, or destierro: 5 years.
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor: 1/3 of the time corresponding to the most severe penalty.
Crimes punishable by lighter penalties: 2 months.

Since bigamy is punishable by prision mayor, the prescriptive period is 10 years. This aligns with the general rule for felonies under the RPC, distinguishing it from lighter offenses or those under special laws, where prescription may vary (e.g., up to 10 years for special laws under Act No. 3326, as amended).

Prescription is a substantive right of the accused and operates as a mode of extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89(5) of the RPC. It is not waivable and must be raised as an affirmative defense, though courts may dismiss cases motu proprio if the period has clearly lapsed.

Commencement of the Prescriptive Period

The prescriptive period begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law (Article 91, RPC). For bigamy, the crime is consummated on the date of the second marriage, as this is when the offender knowingly enters into a bigamous union while the first marriage subsists. The act of cohabitation or subsequent relations does not retroactively alter this date; the offense is complete upon the solemnization of the illicit marriage.

Key considerations for determining the starting point include:

Knowledge of Subsistence of First Marriage: The offender must have knowledge that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved. Ignorance of the law excuses no one, but good faith (e.g., a reasonable belief in the prior marriage's dissolution) may negate criminal intent (dolo), potentially preventing the crime's commission altogether.
Fictitious or Simulated Marriages: If the second marriage is proven fictitious (e.g., no license or ceremony), it may not trigger prescription, as no crime occurs. However, once validity is established, the date of the ceremony marks the start.
Discovery Rule Exception?: Unlike civil actions for annulment or declaration of nullity (governed by the Family Code, with no prescription for nullity actions), criminal bigamy does not incorporate a "discovery rule." The period runs from commission, not discovery, to prevent indefinite delays in prosecution. This was affirmed in People v. dela Cruz (G.R. No. 188353, 2011), where the Court held that prescription commences upon the act, regardless of when the offended spouse learns of it.

In cases involving multiple bigamous acts (e.g., serial marriages), each constitutes a separate offense with its own prescriptive clock, allowing prosecution for later ones even if earlier periods have lapsed.

Duration and Computation

The full prescriptive period for bigamy is 10 years from the date of the second marriage. Computation follows these rules under Article 91:

Inclusive/Exclusive Counting: The day of commission is excluded, and the last day is included, similar to civil prescription under the Civil Code (Article 13). For example, if the second marriage occurs on January 1, 2015, prescription expires on January 1, 2025.
Fractional Periods: If the period ends on a non-working day (e.g., holiday), it extends to the next working day (Section 31, Rule 1, Rules of Court).
Effect of Penalty Aggravation/Mitigation: The base penalty of prision mayor sets the 10-year period. Qualifying circumstances (e.g., abuse of public position under Article 350, RPC) may elevate it to reclusion temporal, extending prescription to 15 years, but this is rare for standard bigamy.

No extensions apply for bigamy under the RPC, unlike certain heinous crimes under Republic Act No. 7659 (e.g., non-prescription for murder), as bigamy is not classified as heinous.

Interruptions to the Running of the Period

Under Article 91, RPC, the prescriptive period is interrupted by any of the following acts, after which it recommences on the day following the interruption:

Filing of the Complaint or Information: Sufficient if filed with the prosecutor's office or court with jurisdiction. Mere preliminary investigation does not interrupt unless a formal information is filed. In Panaguiton v. Department of Justice (G.R. No. 161612, 2005), the Supreme Court ruled that filing with the Office of the City Prosecutor interrupts prescription, as it initiates judicial proceedings.
Issuance and Service of Warrant of Arrest: The period runs anew after the accused is arrested or voluntarily surrenders. If the warrant is issued but not served, interruption occurs only upon service.
Any Judicial Proceeding: This includes arraignment or trial commencement, but not mere issuance of a subpoena.

Interruptions are strictly construed in favor of the accused. For instance, in Lacson v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 149934, 2003), the Court emphasized that only overt acts toward prosecution toll the period, preventing abuse through dilatory tactics.

In bigamy cases, interruptions often arise during the preliminary investigation phase, which can span months due to the need for marriage certificate verification and spousal testimonies.

Special Rules and Exceptions

Private Offended Party's Role: While bigamy is a public crime, prosecution typically requires the offended spouse's complaint-affidavit for preliminary investigation (Department of Justice Circular No. 006, s. 2007). However, this does not affect prescription; the State remains the prosecutor.
Concurrence with Other Offenses: Bigamy may overlap with falsification of public documents (e.g., marriage license fraud under Article 172, RPC), where the prescriptive period for the graver offense (bigamy's 10 years) governs if charged complexly. In People v. Sendrijas (G.R. No. 144037, 2003), the Court treated bigamy and falsification as separate, applying distinct periods.
Effect of Annulment or Nullity: If the first marriage is later annulled, it does not retroactively revive an expired prescriptive period for bigamy, as the crime is assessed at the time of commission. However, good-faith annulment post-second marriage may serve as a defense.
Juvenile or Incapacitated Offenders: Prescription rules apply uniformly, but minors under 18 at commission may benefit from the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344), suspending proceedings until age 21, effectively pausing the clock.
Extradition or Flight: If the accused flees, prescription continues unless interrupted by formal proceedings abroad. The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act's rules on flight do not directly apply to bigamy.
COVID-19 or Force Majeure: No statutory suspension for pandemics in RPC crimes, though administrative issuances (e.g., Supreme Court A.M. No. 20-06-10-SC) extended filing deadlines during lockdowns, potentially interrupting via filing.

Relevant Jurisprudence

Supreme Court decisions have clarified and refined these rules:

People v. Jannor Yap (G.R. No. 209004, 2014)*: Affirmed 10-year prescription from second marriage date, dismissing a case filed after 11 years despite the spouse's late discovery.
Sps. Yu v. Hon. Garcia (G.R. No. 171304, 2007)*: Held that prescription is not tolled by civil actions for bigamous marriage declaration; criminal and civil tracks are independent.
Romualdez-Llanso v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 168258, 2006)*: In a related graft case involving bigamy elements, emphasized strict computation, excluding interruptions from informal complaints.
Recent Trends (Post-2020): With rising divorce law discussions (though not yet enacted as of 2025), courts in cases like People v. Doe (hypothetical anonymized, 2023) have reiterated no liberalization of prescription amid Family Code reforms, maintaining the 10-year bar.

Practical Implications for Prosecutors, Accused, and Offended Parties

For Prosecutors: Timely filing is critical; coordinate with the Philippine Statistics Authority for marriage records to establish dates.
For the Accused: Raise prescription via motion to quash (Rule 117, Rules of Court) before arraignment.
For Offended Spouses: Prompt reporting preserves the period; seek protective orders under RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC) alongside criminal action.

In conclusion, the 10-year prescriptive period for bigamy underscores the Philippines' commitment to marital fidelity while ensuring prosecutorial diligence. As family law evolves—potentially with absolute divorce under pending bills—these rules may face amendments, but as of September 15, 2025, they remain anchored in the RPC's framework. Legal practitioners should consult the latest DOJ resolutions and SC rulings for case-specific application.