REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
Manila

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

ARSENIO F. LIBOT, represented

herein by his Attorney-in-Fact
AMELITA LIBOT TOMADA,
Complainant-Appellant. Case No. _______________________
For Review of the Resolutions of the
-versus- Manila City Prosecutor’s Office in I. S.
No. XV-07-INV-13D-02772 for Bigamy
REMEDIOS BISARRA,
Respondent-Appellee.

PETITION FOR REVIEW

PETITIONER ARSENIO F. LIBOT, by and through the undersigned

Counsel, and unto this Honorable Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice,
most respectfully avers—

CIRCUMSTANCES OF PARTIES

Petitioner ARSENIO F. LIBOT is of legal age, a native of San Vicente, Alcala,

Pangasinan and currently residing at 5456 Shattuc Freemont, CA 94555, United
States of America. He is represented by his Sister and Attorney-in-Fact AMELITA
LIBOT TOMADA as per the Special Power of Attorney dated April 1, 2013, a copy
of which is hereto attached as ANNEX A. On the other hand, REMEDIOS
BISARRA, is of legal age, Filipino, and with last known addresses at San Vicente,
Alcala Pangasinan. She is represented by Perdigon Duclan and Associates, Unit
3B, Corinthian Plaza, 121 Paseo De Roxas, Legaspi Village, Makati City where she
may be served summons and other legal processes.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

On February 20, 2014, Petitioner received the Resolution of the Manila City
Prosecutor's Office dated July 31, 2013, the duplicate original of which is hereto
attached as ANNEX B, dismissing the complaint against Respondent. He filed a
timely Motion for Reconsideration, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX C.

On August 11, 2014, Petitioner received through counsel via registered mail
the Resolution of the Manil City Prosecutor’s Office dated June 20, 2013 denying
the Motion for Reconsideration. The duplicate original of the Resolution on the
Motion for Reconsideration is hereto attached as ANNEX D. It is within the
prescribed 15-day period that this instant Petition for Review is being filed.

1
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 20, 1992, Petitioner Arsenio F. Libot married herein Respondent

Remedios Bisarra in the City Hall of Manila, Philippines as evidenced by their
Marriage Contract issued by the National Statistics Office | Office of the Civil
Registrar General, a copy of which is hereto attached as ANNEX E. This marriage
has never been declared null and void by any court.

Last year, Petitioner discovered that ten [10] years before he and Remedios
Bisarra were married, Remedios Bisarra wed a certain Dizon Flores on January 17,
1982 in Alcala, Pangasinan as evidenced by the Marriage Contract issued by the
National Statistics Office | Office of the Civil Registrar General, a copy of which
is hereto attached as ANNEX F, the Certificate issued by the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of Alcala, Pangasinan, a copy of which is hereto attached as
ANNEX G; as well as by the Certificate of Marriage issued by Rev. Fr. Numeriano
A. Gabot, Jr. of the Holy Cross Parish in Alcala Pangasinan, a copy of which is
hereto attached as ANNEX H. This had not been in any way legally dissolved at
the time she married Arsenio F. Libot; and in fact it subsists to this day.

Respondent Remedios Bisarra’s acts have cast dishonor, discredit and

contempt upon Petitioner for which the latter deserves to be vindicated.

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

The Manila City Prosecutor's Office committed grave abuse of discretion

and made manifest errors in dismissing the Petitioner’s complaint against
Respondents. This error calls for correction especially because more than enough
evidence exists to indict and hold Respondent criminally liable under the law.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Contrary to the findings of the Investigating Prosecutors, Petitioner had

adduced more than enough evidence that altogether support the indictment,
prosecution, and eventual incarceration of Respondent Remedios Bisarra for
Bigamy in violation of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines as amended.

In holding that the prescriptive period supposedly began in 1992, the

Investigating Prosecutor erroneously presumed that the Complainant was already
aware of the commission of the crime. The truth of the matter is that Respondent
Remedios Bisarra had cleverly and deliberately concealed that fact that she had a
prior marriage. Complaint learned about this fact only last year—which was
precisely the very reason why it was only then that the Complaint Affidavit was
filed. Thus, while it may be true that the prosecution of a person for crimes
punishable by an afflictive penalty is fifteen years, the reckoning period is the time
when the felony is discovered by the offended party. In the case at bar, inasmuch
as the reprehensible act of bigamy was brought to light only in 2013, both the
Complainant and the State have until the year 2028 to efficaciously prosecute the
Respondent.
Article 91 of Act No. 3815 otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines, as Amended clearly provides—

2
 Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses.—The period of
prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended part, the authorities, or their
agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or
acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent
from the Philippine Archipelago.

[Underscoring supplied, for emphasis]

In the relatively recent case of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on

Behest Loans v. Aniano Desierto et al.,1 the Supreme Court took the occasion to
rule—

Prescription of crime shall begin to run from the day of its

commission, and if the same be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for
its investigation and punishment.

x x x

Generally, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the

day the crime is committed. That an aggrieved person “entitled
to an action has no knowledge of his right to sue or of the facts
out of which his right arises,” does not prevent the running of the
prescriptive period. An exception to this rule is the “blameless
ignorance” doctrine x x x. Under this doctrine, “the statute of
limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of
a right which will support a cause of action. In other words, the
courts would decline to apply the statute of limitations where the
plaintiff does not know or has no reasonable means of knowing
the existence of a cause of action.”

In People of the Philippines v. Salvador Monteiro,2 the Supreme Court made the
following elucidations—

In holding that the prescriptive period should begin in January

1964, the trial judge was merely presuming that the appellant was
already aware on that date of the commission of the crime. There
is no proof of this, nor is such knowledge deducible from a reading
of the information. Even the motion to quash did not allege that
the appellant already knew of the violation immediately when it
began in January 1964.

x x x In the case at bar, it does not appear that Collantes knew at

the outset, that is, from January 1964, that she had not been

1 G. R. No. 135715, April 11, 2011.

2 G. R. No. 49454, December 21, 1990.

3
 registered by the appellee with the SSS. In fact, she said she
learned she was not a member only much later, when she wanted
to avail herself of SSS benefits because of the hospitalization of
her husband.

The appellee's claim that his subsequent registration of Collantes

with the SSS extinguished his current liability, if any, is not
acceptable. If subsequent compliance with the law were sufficient
to condone past violation, then the penal clause might as well be
deleted from the statute. Many an unscrupulous employer could
simply not register his employees and, when found out and
prosecuted, register them belatedly. Such an interpretation would
nullify the purpose of the law, which is precisely to protect the
members of the working class.

Both law and jurisprudence hold that the period of prescription begins from
time of the discovery of the violation if this was not known at the time of its
commission. A contrary view would be dangerous as the successful concealment
of an offense during the period fixed for its prescription would be the very means
by which the offender may escape punishment.3 Moreover, Respondent has
already implicitly admitted her wrongdoing which necessitates not only her
indictment but also her eventual incarceration. She is already well aware of the
complaint for bigamy against her—as in fact she has directed her lawyers to file
pleadings after pleadings in her behalf as well as to actively participate in the
various aspects of the proceedings. Her legal maneuverings, no matter how
sophisticated, cannot overcome the reality that she is now estopped from claiming
that she cannot be required to answer for her crime.

It appears also that considering the quantum of evidence adduced during

the Preliminary Investigation, the Investigating Prosecutor has sufficient probable
cause to file the appropriate criminal information [indictment] in court for Bigamy
against the Respondent. Complainant has shown through authentic documents
issued by the National Statistics Office / Office of the Civil Registrar and other
agencies and entities that Respondent indeed unlawfully contracted a second
marriage even though her first marriage still subsists and has not been legally
dissolved. Respondent deserves to be chastised for what she did, as can be gleaned
from Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code—

Art. 349. Bigamy—The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed

upon any person who shall contract a second marriage or
subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally
dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the
proper proceedings.

The offense of Bigamy is a serious evil which our penal laws aim to
extirpate. It is considered a public crime and involves nothing less than the moral
wellbeing of the people whose transgressed interests are supposed to be
vindicated by the Prosecution Service. As protector of the people, the Prosecution
Service should be pro-active in making use of its vast arsenal of powers to bring

3 See People of the Philippines v. Tamayo, 40 O. G. 2313.

4
the lamp of scrutiny to otherwise dark places even over the resistance of those who
would draw the blinds.

Respondent’s contentions, if any, concerning her purported innocence

are matters of defense best threshed out during the course of trial where evidence
shall be analyzed, weighed, given credence or disproved.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner respectfully prays that the

Resolutions of the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office be cancelled and set aside, and
that an Order be issued directing the Manila City Prosecutor's Office to formally
indict and file criminal information against Respondent Remedios Bisarra in
violation of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines as amended—within ten
days from notice. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

[EXPLANATION AS TO THE MODE OF SERVICE. A copy of this

Petition for Review is being furnished the Respondent via Registered Mail due to
time and distance constraints as well as lack of personnel to effect personal
service.]

Baguio City for Manila, Philippines,

August 14, 2014

CORPUZ | QUITAN LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Arsenio Libot
Room 202 Otek Business Centre
No. 13 Otek Street, Baguio City 2600
Telephone No. [074] 422 0449
www.corpuzquitan.com

ATTY. OSCAR A. CORPUZ, JR.

Attorney’s Roll No. 53486
IBP No. 937963 01.06.2014 Baguio City
PTR No. 1576239 01.06.2014 Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0000132; 07.20.2013

5
 VERIFICATION

I, AMELITA LIBOT TOMADA, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of

Tagama Street, San Vicente, Alcala, Pangasinan, Philippines, after being sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that I am the sister and attorney-in-
fact of ARSENIO F. LIBOT, the Petitioner in the above-entitled Petition for
Review. For and in his behalf and in my capacity as his attorney-in-fact, I have
caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer
to Assign Case to Another Investigating Prosecutor or a Review Panel. I have read
and understood the contents thereof. I attest to their truth based on my own
personal knowledge and upon authentic documents or records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I set my hand this 14th day of August 2014 at

Baguio City, Philippines.

AMELITA LIBOT TOMADA

TIN 946-383-923
Postal ID No. 9598877

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES | S. S.

DONE: IN THE CITY OF BAGUIO |

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of August 2014 at

Baguio City, Philippines.

ATTY. MELISSA L. QUITAN-CORPUZ

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2014
N. A. No. 57-NC-13-R
Attorney’s Roll No. 53494
IBP No. 937962 01.06.2014 Baguio City
Doc. No.157 PTR No. 1576238 01.06.2014 Baguio City
Page No.32 MCLE Compliance No. V-0000131; 07.20.2013
Book No. XXI
Series of 2014

Copy furnished via Registered Mail—

PERDIGON DUCLAN AND ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Respondent Remedios Bisarra
Unit 3B Third Floor Corinthian Plaza
121 Paseo De Roxas Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City