Case Summary (G.R. No. 223295)
Factual Background
The information charged that on or about August 16, 1969 in Norzagaray, Bulacan, the accused, Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. y Bernardino, being previously united in lawful marriage with one Dolores Desiderio and without that marriage having been legally dissolved, contracted a second marriage with one Norma Jimenez. The record shows that the accused had married Dolores Desiderio on March 20, 1969 in Balagtas, Bulacan, and subsequently married Norma Jimenez on August 16, 1969 in Norzagaray, Bulacan. The accused admitted contracting two marriages and, after presentation of one prosecution witness, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty on August 11, 1970.
Trial Court Proceedings
Upon arraignment on February 4, 1970 the accused pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded. After the accused pleaded guilty on August 11, 1970 the trial nevertheless continued for reception of evidence on the civil aspect. On December 9, 1970 the accused filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that it was defective for charging only the accused and not the second wife, thereby allegedly depriving the court of jurisdiction; the motion was denied on February 22, 1971. The private prosecutor orally withdrew the claim for damages on April 28, 1971. On May 25, 1971 the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Bigamy under Article 349, Revised Penal Code, and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six months and one day of Prision Correccional as minimum to six years and four months of Prision Mayor as maximum, with costs.
Appeal and Court of Appeals Proceedings
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning as error the refusal of the trial court to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction. While the records were being completed, the private prosecutor filed motions requesting that the case be certified to the Supreme Court on the ground that the appeal involved a pure question of law. The Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals in a resolution of May 11, 1973 referred those motions to the division to which the case would be raffled. The case was eventually assigned to a Special Division of Five Justices which, by a resolution dated April 14, 1975 and by a four-to-one vote, ruled that only a question of law was involved and forwarded the case to the Supreme Court; the lone dissent maintained that the case presented questions of fact concerning the alleged defect in the information.
Issue Presented
The dispositive issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in refusing to quash the information on the ground that it was defective for not including the second wife, Norma Jimenez, as a co-accused, and whether such non-inclusion rendered the prosecution void for lack of jurisdiction.
The Parties' Contentions
The appellant contended that the information was defective because it did not charge the second wife as a co-accused and that such defect deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to try the case. The prosecution and the trial court maintained that bigamy under Article 349, Revised Penal Code may be committed by a single person who contracts a subsequent marriage while a prior marriage remains undissolved, that bigamy is a public offense and a crime against status distinct from adultery and concubinage, and that inclusion of the second spouse as an accused depends upon available evidence of her culpability, notably knowledge of the prior marriage.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. y Bernardino and sentencing him as above, with costs against the accused-appellant. The Court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to quash the information for non-inclusion of the second wife. The decision was concurred in by Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ.; Teehankee and Munoz Palma, JJ., were on official leave.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court examined the text of Article 349, Revised Penal Code, which penalizes any person who contracts a second or subsequent marriage before a prior marriage has been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has been judicially declared presumptively dead. From the statute the Court concluded that the crime of bigamy is consummated by the act of the person who contracts the subsequent marriage and does not per se require the joint criminal liability of the second spouse. The Court distinguished bigamy from adultery and concubinage, noting that the latter are private offenses and that the law and the Rules of Court expressly contemplate prosecution of the culprits jointly or inclusion of both where both are alive; by contrast, bigamy is a public off
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223295)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES acted as plaintiff and appellee in the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
- RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, JR. Y BERNARDINO was the accused and appellant who challenged the sufficiency of the information.
- The conviction of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V was brought to the Court of Appeals and thereafter was certified to the Supreme Court for final determination.
- The Court of Appeals Special Division of Five Justices forwarded the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that a pure question of law was involved.
Key Factual Allegations
- The information charged that on or about August 16, 1969, in Norzagaray, Bulacan, the accused, then previously united in legal marriage with Dolores Desiderio, contracted a second marriage with Norma Jimenez while the former marriage remained undissolved.
- The information was dated December 8, 1969, and contained certification that a preliminary investigation was conducted under Sec. 14, Rule 112, Rules of Court by the assisting provincial fiscal.
- The accused admitted contracting the two marriages when he changed his plea to guilty during trial proceedings.
Procedural History
- The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment on February 4, 1970, and later withdrew the plea and pleaded guilty on August 11, 1970.
- A motion to quash the information for alleged defect in not including the second wife as co-accused was filed on December 9, 1970, and denied on February 22, 1971.
- The private prosecutor withdrew the civil claim for damages on April 28, 1971.
- The trial court rendered judgment on May 25, 1971, convicting the accused of bigamy and imposing an indeterminate sentence.
- The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which by resolution referred the case to the Supreme Court as involving a question of law.
Trial Court Disposition
- The Court of First Instance found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of six months and one day of Prision Correccional as minimum to six years and four months of Prision Mayor as maximum, with costs.
Issue Presented
- Whether the information was defective for failing to include the second wife, Norma Jimenez, as a co-accused thereby requiring quashal of the information or dismissal of the prosecution.
Contentions of the Accused
- The accused contended that the non-inclusion of the second wife rendered the information defective and deprived the trial court