BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO

PEOPLE VS. ERWIN BONBON, G.R. NO. 272844 (FEBRUARY 24, 2025): PRECRIPTION OF THE CRIME OF BIGAMY TO BE RECKONED FROM THE TIME OF DISCOVERY OF THE BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE AS THE PRINCPLE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE NOT APPLICABLE EVEN IF FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED

Cecile Bonbon Waga (Cecile) and her sister Alice Bonbon-Ong (Alice) filed a Complaint for Bigamy against their younger brother accused-appellant Erwin Bonbon (Erwin) and Elizabeth Brua Bonbon (Elizabeth). Cecilie and Alice alleged that while the marriage of their brother Erwin with his first wife Gemma Cunada (Gemma) was subsisting, whom Erwin married in January 3, 1988, he contracted a second marriage with Rizalina Marcos on June 18, 1994 and with accused-appellant Elizabeth on February 1, 1999. Cecile testified that Elizabeth knew Erwin was married because she told her a year before they got married. Cecile testified that their late mother Necitas Tia Bonbon got very upset that Erwin and Elizabeth still contracted marriage and Elizabeth moved into their compound in Cagayan de Oro City after they got married. The National Bureau of Investigation, which issued subpoena and secured the three (3) marriage certificates of Erwin with three (3) different women, testified during trial presenting these certificates. 

For his defense, Erwin testified that it was her mother and her sisters who prodded him to marry Elizabeth since they already had two (2) children and they do not want Elizabeth to leave with their children. Erwin testified that it was their mother and her sister Cecile who went to Elizabeth’s family in Medina, Misamis Oriental and assured the latter’s family that Erwin will marry Elizabeth. Erwin testified that it was his mother who arranged a “secret” civil marriage with the Mayor Baungon, Bukidnon since she worked with the Department of Interior and Local Government Region X. For her part, Elizabeth alleged that she never knew that Erwin was married and that it was Erwin’s mother who arranged their “secret” marriage. Elizabeth testified that she was asked to sign blank Marriage Contract and that no ceremony occurred. Elizabeth testified that her sisters sued Erwin for Bigamy to get even with their brother and the dispute over their property/compound.

The Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon convicted accused-appellant Erwin and Elizabeth for Bigamy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. On the issue of prescription, the Supreme Court, citing the case of Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994, held that the principle of constructive notice does not apply even if it is favorable to the accused. While the subject marriage was contracted in 1999, it was discovered only by the complainants in 2020 and the case was filed in 2022. The Court also held that Erwin failed to prove that the complainants were aware of their marriage prior to 2020. The Court further stated that it should be the discovery of the “secret” marriage which should be the reckoning period and not the registration of marriage, otherwise, it will be hard to prosecute the perpetrators of bigamous marriages. 

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Bigamy, to wit: (a) that the offender has been legally married; (b) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (c) that he or she contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites of validity. 

The Court held that the presence of the first three elements is undisputed; they are supported by the records and admitted by Erwin himself. The prosecution established that Erwin validly married Gemma Cunada on January 3, 1988. Thereafter, Erwin contracted marriages with two other women – Rizalina Marcos in 1994 and Elizabeth in 1999, without having his first marriage with Gemma legally dissolved. 

The Supreme Court further held that, “While the rule now stands that a void subsequent marriage is a valid defense in a criminal prosecution for Bigamy even without a judicial declaration of nullity, nonetheless, the accused still cannot rely on mere allegations, but must present testimonial or documentary evidence to support the same.” The Court further held that this is particularly true when the validity of marriage alleged to be void is supported by public documents which have in their favor the presumption or regularity. The use of an evidentiary presumption in this case is sufficient to convict Erwin and Elizabeth beyond reasonable doubt as the existence and authenticity of public documents were admitted by the defense. Erwin failed to rebut the presumption of regularity and accuracy of the marriage certificate and the marriage license to prove the validity of his marital union of Elizabeth.