Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > June 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40624 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. NEPOMUCENO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-40624. June 27, 1975.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, JR. Y BERNARDINO, Accused-Appellant.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Eduardo C. Abaya and Solicitor Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rosalino C. Barican for Accused-Appellant.

Porfirio L. Villaroman as private prosecutor.

SYNOPSIS


Accused-appellant appealed from the decision of the trial court convicting him of the crime of bigamy, contending that the information was defective for failure to include the second wife as a co-accused. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this Court because it involves purely question of law.

The Supreme Court found the appellant’s contention completely devoid of merit because the crime of bigamy can be committed by one person and the non-inclusion of the second spouse in the information is not a defect in the information which would bar the prosecution thereof. Appealed decision affirmed with costs against the Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; BIGAMY; HOW COMMITTED: — The crime of bigamy is committed when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been judicially declared presumptively dead.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; THE CRIME OF BIGAMY IS NOT A JOINT LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES: — The contention that the crime of bigamy entails the joint liability of the two persons who may marry each other, while the previous marriage of one or the other is valid and subsisting is completely devoid of merit because the crime of bigamy can be committed by one person and Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code does not specifically require the prosecution of both the contracting parties to the illegal marriage.

3. ID.; ID.; BIGAMY AND ADULTERY OR CONCUBINAGE DIFFERENTIATED. — Bigamy is not similar to the crimes of adultery and concubinage wherein the law specifically requires that the culprits, if both are alive, should be prosecuted or included in the information. In bigamy both first and second spouses may be offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second wife married the accused without being aware of his previous marriage. Bigamy is a public offense and a crime against status, while adultery and concubinage, are private offenses and are crimes against chastity. In adultery and concubinage pardon by the offended party bars the prosecution of the case which is not so in bigamy.

4. ID.; ID.; INFORMATION NON-INCLUSION OF THE SECOND WIFE AS A CO-ACCUSED IN THE INFORMATION FOR BIGAMY, NOT A DEFECT. — The non-inclusion in the information of the second wife as a co-accused in the crime of bigamy is not a defect in the information since her inclusion or not depends on the available evidence against her. However, where the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused and yet she entered into a marriage relation, she may be included in the information as a co-accused.


D E C I S I O N


ESGUERRA, J.:


The decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V (Sta. Maria), convicting accused Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. y Bernardo of "Bigamy punishable under the provisions of Article 349, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Months and One (1) day of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to Six (6) Years and Four (4) Months of Prision Mayor, as maximum, with costs", is now before Us for review because the Court of Appeals (Division of Five Justices) in its Resolution of April 14, 1975, in CA-G.R. No. 12641-CR, by a four to one vote ruled that only a question of law is involved in the appeal, and decision on the case is not dependent on factual findings to be made so as to bring the case within the competence of the appellate court. The dissenting opinion holds that there is no question of law involved as what is to be decided is the question of whether or not the information filed was defective for not including the second wife as an accused and, hence, the Court of Appeals could have decided it on the merits by affirming the decision of the lower court.

The uncontested facts are:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Information dated December 8, 1969 reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. of the crime of bigamy, penalized under the provisions of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 16th day of August, 1969, in the municipality of Norzagaray, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr., being then previously united in lawful marriage with one Dolores Desiderio, and without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one Norma Jimenez.

Contrary to law.

Malolos, Bulacan, December 8, 1969.

(Sgd.) FRANCISCO C. BURGOS

Asst. Provincial Fiscal

I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation in this case has been conducted by me in accordance with Sec. 14, Rule 112, of the Rules of Court; that there is reasonable ground to believe that the offense charged has been committed; and, that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

(Sgd.) FRANCISCO C. BURGOS

Asst. Provincial Fiscal

(Orig. Rec., p. 1)

"Upon arraignment on February 4, 1970, Accused pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded accordingly. After the prosecution had presented one witness, the accused, on August 11, 1970, withdrew his plea of not guilty and changed it into one of guilty. The case however proceeded for the reception of evidence on the civil aspect.

"On December 9, 1970, a motion to quash was filed on the ground that the information is defective as it charged only the accused for bigamy without including the second wife and such failure, according to accused, conferred no jurisdiction on the lower court to try and decide the case. Said motion was denied on February 22, 1971. On April 28, 1971, private prosecutor orally withdrew the claim for damages, which the lower court granted. On May 25, 1971, the lower court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy punishable under the provisions of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional as minimum, to Six (6) Years and Four (4) Months of Prision Mayor, as maximum, with costs." (Orig. Rec. 201-202)

"On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Accused cited as a single error the lower court’s failure to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction. While awaiting completion of the records the private prosecutor filed a motion to forward the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that the appeal involves a pure question of law. Two other motions of the same nature were subsequently filed. In its resolution of May 11, 1973, the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals resolved to give due course to the appeal, to consider it submitted for decision, the same to be raffled immediately and to refer the motions to certify the case to the Supreme Court to the Division to which the case may be raffled."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case was eventually assigned to the Court of Appeals Special Division of Five Justices which promulgated the resolution of April 14, 1975, forwarding the case to this Court for decision.

On the issue of whether or not the lower court erred in not quashing the information because it was defective for not including the second wife (not because of lack of jurisdiction), let us scrutinize the provision of Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second 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 proceedings." (Emphasis for emphasis)

The crime of bigamy is committed when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been judicially declared as presumptively dead. The facts of this case clearly show that accused Nepomuceno married Dolores Desiderio on March 20, 1969, in Balagtas, Bulacan, and that about five months later, or on August 16, 1969, he again married Norma Jimenez in Norzagaray, Bulacan. Accused undeniably contracted two marriages in the short span of five months, which he categorically admitted when he pleaded guilty.

Appellant’s contention that the crime of bigamy entails the joint liability of two persons who marry each other, while the previous marriage of one or the other is valid and subsisting is completely devoid of merit. Even a cursory scrutiny of Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code will disclose that the crime of bigamy can be committed by one person who contracts a subsequent marriage while the former marriage is valid and subsisting. Bigamy is not similar to the crimes of adultery and concubinage, wherein the law (Art. 344, first and third pars., Revised Penal Code, and Sec. 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court) specifically requires that the culprits, if both are alive, should be prosecuted or included in the information. In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused. Bigamy is a public offense and a crime against status, while adultery and concubinage are private offenses and are crimes against chastity. In adultery and concubinage, pardon by the offended party will bar the prosecution of the case, which is not so in bigamy. It is, therefore, clear that bigamy is not similar to adultery or concubinage.

When the accused raised the question of defective information for non-inclusion of the second wife as an accused for the first time in a motion to quash, the lower court ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The information is clear and it is only the accused Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. who contracted a second marriage, he being previously united in lawful marriage with one Dolores Desiderio, and without the same having been legally dissolved, and there being no showing in the recitation of facts in the information to the effect that Norma Jimenez, the second wife, had knowledge of the first marriage, and despite said knowledge she contracted the second marriage with the accused; nor is there any showing that Norma Jimenez had a previous marriage of her own, we see no reason for the inclusion of Norma Jimenez, the second wife, in the information." (Emphasis for emphasis)

Whether or not the second spouse, Norma Jimenez, should be included in the information is a question of fact that was determined by the fiscal who conducted the preliminary investigation in this case. That the fiscal did not include Norma Jimenez in the information simply shows absence of evidence that could make her liable for the crime. Her non-inclusion in the information as a co-accused of appellant Nepomuceno in the crime of bigamy is not a defect in the information filed against Nepomuceno alone since her inclusion or not in said information depended upon available evidence against her. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the lower court committed no error when it refused to quash the information against the accused, Nepomuceno, on the mere flimsy ground that the second wife was not included therein.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ricardo Nepomuceno, Jr. y Bernardino, and sentencing him accordingly, as stated on pages one (1) and three (3) hereof, is affirmed with costs against the Accused-Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Muñoz Palma, JJ., on official leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 145 CFI June 11, 1975 - VICENTE A. CASTRO v. VICENTE P. BULLECER

  • A.C. No. 223-J June 11, 1975 - ROMEO S. PEREZ v. CARLOS ABIERA

  • G.R. No. L-25650 June 11, 1975 - ISIDORA L. CABALIW, ET AL. v. SOTERO SADORRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31225 June 11, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SAMONTE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-31284 June 11, 1975 - SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 207-MJ June 19, 1975 - PRISCA B. ARAZA v. JUANITO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-26183 June 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL N. SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. L-32281 June 19, 1975 - PEDRO ERMAC v. CENON MEDELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37630 June 19, 1975 - CATALINO LACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24971 June 20, 1975 - GREGORIO TAN, JR. v. MALCOLM G. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39254 June 20, 1975 - CENON C. SOLIS, ET AL. v. JAIME R. AGLORO

  • A.M. No. 276-MJ June 27, 1975 - HADJIRUL TAHIL v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • A.M. No. 667 MJ June 27, 1975 - PAULINO B. INTING v. GERTRUDES F. BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23419 June 27, 1975 - BEJAMIN SEBIAL v. ROBERTA SEBIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26358 June 27, 1975 - DONATO LOPEZ, JR. v. CFI OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30037 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO DE LA VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. L-30050 June 27, 1975 - CESAR B. VILLANUEVA v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31447 June 27, 1975 - AURELIO R. BANZON v. FEDERICO L. CABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33138-39 June 27, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38532 June 27, 1975 - ANTIPOLO HIGHWAY LINES, INC., ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38826 June 27, 1975 - TEOTIMO ALAURIN, ET AL. v. JOSE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975 - IN RE: FELIX BALANAY, JR. v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39423 & L-39684 June 27, 1975 - JUAN C. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39800 June 27, 1975 - ROMEO N. HERNANDEZ v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40415 June 27, 1975 - PEDRO E. GAHOL v. FRANCISCO MAT. RIODIQUE

  • G.R. No. L-40624 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. L-40683 June 27, 1975 - ARTURO SAMONTE, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO SAMONTE, ET AL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 201 MJ June 30, 1975 - CECILIA A. DE LA PAZ v. SANTIAGO INUTAN

  • A.M. No. 222-MJ June 30, 1975 - SANTIAGO PALADIN v. ARTURO V. MIRALLES

  • A.M. No. 267 MJ June 30, 1975 - RAFAEL SALCEDO v. DAVID ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22805 & L-27858 June 30, 1975 - WONDER MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25649 June 30, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25965 June 30, 1975 - AMERICAN RUBBER COMPANY v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-26502 June 30, 1975 - ROSARIO M. PONCE ENRILE v. ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-27044 & L-27452 June 30, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28773 June 30, 1975 - FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. v. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. L-29837 June 30, 1975 - STA. ANA HARDWARE & CO. v. "Y" SHIPPING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-30489 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO MACASO

  • G.R. No. L-31953 June 30, 1975 - REYNALDO ALARAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33641 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-37106 June 30, 1975 - JOSE M. LONTOC v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-37844 June 30, 1975 - PATRICIO ALCANTARA, JR. v. CASTRENCE C. VELOSO

  • G.R. No. L-38701 June 30, 1975 - BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39046 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANIO ANIN, ET AL.