Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40624)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. y Bernardino, G.R. No. L-40624, June 27, 1975, the Supreme Court En Banc, Esguerra, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution was filed by the Provincial Fiscal against Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. y Bernardino for the crime of bigamy under Article 349, Revised Penal Code; the private prosecutor originally asserted civil damages but later withdrew them.The Information (Dec. 8, 1969) charged that on or about August 16, 1969 in Norzagaray, Bulacan, the accused, already lawfully married to Dolores Desiderio, contracted a second marriage with Norma Jimenez while the first marriage remained undissolved. A preliminary investigation was conducted (certified consistent with Sec. 14, Rule 112, Rules of Court). At arraignment on February 4, 1970, the accused pleaded not guilty; after the prosecution presented one witness, he changed his plea to guilty on August 11, 1970, but the case proceeded for reception of evidence on the civil aspect.
On December 9, 1970, the accused moved to quash the Information on the ground that it was defective for failing to include the second wife, Norma Jimenez, as a co-accused; he argued that such omission deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion on February 22, 1971. On April 28, 1971 the private prosecutor withdrew the civil damages claim, and on May 25, 1971 the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V (Sta. Maria) found Nepomuceno guilty of bigamy and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of six months and one day of prisión correccional as minimum to six years and four months of prisión mayor as maximum, with costs.
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) assigning a single error—the denial of his motion to quash. While the appeal was pending the private prosecutor filed motions to certify the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that the appeal involved a pure question of law. The CA’s Fifth Division gave due course and, upon raffling, the case was heard by a Special Division of five justices which, by resolution dated April 14, 1975 (CA-G.R. No. 12641-CR), forwarded the appeal to the Supreme Court for decision, the Division regarding the dispute as involving only a question of law. The Court of App...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Information defective for failing to include the second wife, Norma Jimenez, as a co-accused such that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or the Information should have been quashed?
- Does the crime of bigamy require joint prosecution of both spouses (like adultery or concubinage), making inclusion of the second spouse in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)