G.R. No. 187896-97 - Cortes vs. Office of the Ombudsman

The People of the Philippines, as plaintiff and appellant, brought the case against Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. y Bernardino for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
The accused was charged with contracting a second marriage while still lawfully married to his first wife.

The Information was dated December 8, 1969, stating that on or about August 16, 1969, in Norzagaray, Bulacan, the accused, then already married to Dolores Desiderio (married on March 20, 1969, in Balagtas, Bulacan), contracted a second marriage with Norma Jimenez.
The Information was filed solely against the accused; it did not include the second wife, Norma Jimenez, as a co-accused.
A preliminary investigation was conducted by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Francisco C. Burgos under Section 14, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which found reasonable ground to believe that the offense had been committed.

Upon arraignment on February 4, 1970, the accused pleaded not guilty, but during trial, after the prosecution presented one witness, he changed his plea to guilty on August 11, 1970.
A motion to quash the information was filed on December 9, 1970 on the ground that the information was defective for not including the second wife as an accused; however, this motion was denied on February 22, 1971.
A subsequent withdrawal by the private prosecutor of a claim for damages was granted on April 28, 1971.
On May 25, 1971, the trial court rendered its decision, convicting the accused of bigamy and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional as the minimum and Six (6) Years and Four (4) Months of Prision Mayor as the maximum, along with the imposition of costs.

On appeal, the accused contended that the lower court erred in not quashing the information due to its defectiveness—specifically, the failure to charge the second wife.
The Court of Appeals, through a Special Division composed of five Justices, ruled by a four-to-one vote that the appeal involved a pure question of law, thereby excluding the need for additional factual determination.
The appellate resolution questioned whether the non-inclusion of Norma Jimenez should be considered a defect warranting the quashing of the information.

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes contracting a subsequent marriage before a prior marriage has been legally dissolved, was analyzed.
The court emphasized that bigamy is committed by one person contracting a subsequent marriage; it does not necessitate joint liability with the second spouse, distinguishing it from crimes like adultery and concubinage.
The decision highlighted that the inclusion of the second spouse as a co-accused depends on evidence that she had knowledge of the first marriage, which was absent in this case.

Whether the failure to include the second wife, Norma Jimenez, in the information constitutes a defect severe enough to warrant the quashing of the information.
Whether this issue is one of law or fact, thereby determining if the appellate court has jurisdiction to decide the case on the legal question raised.
Whether the omission of the second wife adversely affected the jurisdiction of the lower court in convicting the accused of bigamy.