G.R. No. 137273 - People vs. ErNo.

Lolita Bumatay allegedly married Amado Rosete on January 30, 1968, at the age of 16, with the marriage being solemnized by Judge Delfin D. Rosario in Malasiqui, Pangasinan.
Subsequent to this marriage, Lolita contracted a second marriage with Jose Bumatay (her foster father) on November 6, 2003, even though her marriage with Amado had not been legally dissolved.
Prior to the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Amado, Lolita’s second marriage took place, thereby triggering allegations of bigamy.

On August 17, 2004, Jona Bumatay (the petitioner), filed a Complaint-affidavit for bigamy against Lolita, detailing that:

Lolita married Amado Rosete on January 30, 1968.
Despite Amado’s marriage being still valid and subsisting, Lolita married Jose Bumatay on November 6, 2003.
Lolita was fully aware that her first marriage had not been legally dissolved at the time of her second wedding.

In response, Lolita, through her counter-affidavit, claimed she learned from her children that Amado had moved to file a petition for declaration of nullity and was later informed of his death in Nueva Vizcaya.
Prosecutor Bernardo S. Valdez of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office filed an Information for Bigamy on November 8, 2004, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, alleging that Lolita, while legally married to Amado, contracted a second marriage with Jose Bumatay.

Sometime in January 2005, Lolita filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Amado with the RTC-Dagupan City, Pangasinan.
The RTC-Dagupan City, on September 20, 2005, declared the marriage between Lolita and Amado null and void ab initio on the ground that no actual marriage ceremony took place between them, noting that it was in fact her sister who had married Amado and that the signature on the certificate was not Lolita’s.

In the bigamy case filed in RTC-San Carlos, Lolita sought a deferment of her arraignment by filing a Motion to Quash the Information on November 2, 2005.
Her motion rested on the contention that the essential element of bigamy—the existence of a prior legal marriage—was absent because of the later declaration of nullity of her first marriage.
Relying on the precedent set in Morigo v. People, the RTC-San Carlos granted the motion to quash on March 20, 2006 and dismissed the case, holding that since the first marriage was declared null ab initio, there was no legal impediment and hence no crime of bigamy was committed.

Jona Bumatay, dissatisfied with the dismissal, appealed the RTC-San Carlos’ Order before the Court of Appeals (CA).
On August 28, 2009, the CA affirmed the dismissal, noting that the nullity of the first marriage retrospectively voided the legal basis for the bigamy charge.
Jona’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated February 4, 2010.
Jona then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on April 5, 2010, asserting that the CA erred in upholding the dismissal of the criminal case.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in upholding the RTC-San Carlos’ Order granting Lolita’s motion to quash the Information for the crime of bigamy.

Specifically, whether the nullity declared by the RTC-Dagupan City, which voided the first marriage ab initio, served as a proper basis to dismiss the bigamy charge.

Whether Jona Bumatay, as a private offended party, had the legal personality to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case.

The issue revolves around the proper standing of a private complainant in criminal proceedings, where only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is authorized to represent the People.