Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-40624 June 27, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RC!R"O NEPOMUCENO, JR. # $ERN!R"NO, accused-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Eduardo C.
Abaya and Solicitor Ma. Rosario Quetulio-osa for !laintiff-a!!ellee.
Rosalino C. "arican for accused-a!!ellant.
Porfirio . #illaro$an as !ri%ate !rosecutor.

ESGUERR!, J.:
The decision of the Court of First nstance of Bulacan, Branch ! "#ta. Maria$, convictin%
accused Ricardo Nepo&uceno, 'r. ( Bernardo of )Bi%a&( punishable under the provisions of
Article *+,, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencin% hi& to suffer an indeter&inate penalt( of
#i- ".$ Months and /ne "0$ da( of Prision Correccional, as &ini&u&, to #i- ".$ 1ears and Four
"+$ Months of Prision Mayor, as &a-i&u&, 2ith costs), is no2 before 3s for revie2 because the
Court of Appeals "4ivision of Five 'ustices$ in its Resolution of April 0+, 0,56, in CA-7.R. No.
08.+0-CR, b( a four to one vote ruled that onl( a 9uestion of la2 is involved in the appeal, and
decision on the case is not dependent on factual findin%s to be &ade so as to brin% the case
2ithin the co&petence of the appellate court. The dissentin% opinion holds that there is no
9uestion of la2 involved as 2hat is to be decided is the 9uestion of 2hether or not the
infor&ation filed 2as defective for not includin% the second 2ife as an accused and, hence, the
Court of Appeals could have decided it on the &erits b( affir&in% the decision of the lo2er
court.
The uncontested facts are:
The nfor&ation dated 4ece&ber ;, 0,., reads as follo2s:
)The undersi%ned Provincial Fiscal accuses Ricardo Nepo&uceno,
'r. of the cri&e of bi%a&(, penali<ed under the provisions of
Article *+, of the Revised Penal Code, co&&itted as follo2s:
That on or about the 0.th da( of Au%ust, 0,.,, in the &unicipalit(
of Nor<a%ara(, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and 2ithin the
'urisdiction of this =onorable Court, the said accused Ricardo
Nepo&uceno, 'r., bein% then previousl( united in la2ful &arria%e
2ith one 4olores 4esiderio, and 2ithout the said &arria%e havin%
been le%all( dissolved, did then and there 2ilfull(, unla2full( and
feloniousl( contract a second &arria%e 2ith one Nor&a 'i&ene<.
Contrar( to la2.
Malolos, Bulacan, 4ece&ber ;, 0,.,.
"#%d.$
FRAN
C#C/
C.
B3R7
/#
Asst.
Provin
cial
Fiscal
hereb( certif( that a preli&inar( investi%ation in this case has
been conducted b( &e in accordance 2ith #ec. 0+, Rule 008, of the
Rules of Court> that there is reasonable %round to believe that the
offense char%ed has been co&&itted> and, that the accused is
probabl( %uilt( thereof.
"#%d.$
FRAN
C#C/
C.
B3R7
/#
Asst.
provin
cial
Fiscal
"/ri%. Rec., p. 0$
3pon arrai%n&ent on Februar( +, 0,5?, accused pleaded not %uilt( and trial
proceeded accordin%l(. After the prosecution had presented one 2itness, the
accused, on Au%ust 00, 0,5?, 2ithdre2 his plea of not %uilt( and chan%ed it into
one of %uilt(. The case ho2ever proceeded for the reception of evidence on the
civil aspect.
/n 4ece&ber ,, 0,5?, a &otion to 9uash 2as filed on the %round that the
infor&ation is defective as it char%ed onl( the accused for bi%a&( 2ithout
includin% the second 2ife and such failure, accordin% to accused, conferred no
@urisdiction on the lo2er court to tr( and decide the case. #aid &otion 2as denied
on Februar( 88, 0,50. /n April 8;, 0,50, private prosecutor orall( 2ithdre2 the
clai& for da&a%es, 2hich the lo2er court %ranted. /n Ma( 86, 0,50, the lo2er
court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of 2hich reads:
A=EREF/RE, the Court finds the accused RCAR4/
NEP/M3CEN/, 'R. %uilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of the cri&e
of Bi%a&( punishable under the provisions of Article *+, of the
Revised Penal Code and hereb( sentences hi& to suffer an
indeter&inate sentence of #i- ".$ Months and /ne "l$ 4a(
of Prision Correccional as &ini&u&, to #i- ".$ 1ears and Four "+$
Months of Prision Mayor, as &a-i&u&, 2ith costs. "/ri%. Rec.
8?0-8?8$
/n appeal to the Court of Appeals, accused cited as a sin%le error the lo2er
courtBs failure to 9uash the infor&ation for lacC of @urisdiction. Ahile a2aitin%
co&pletion of the records the private prosecutor filed a &otion to for2ard the case
to the #upre&e Court on the %round that the appeal involves a pure 9uestion of
la2. T2o other &otions of the sa&e nature 2ere subse9uentl( filed. n its
resolution of Ma( 00, 0,5*, the Fifth 4ivision of the Court of Appeals resolved to
%ive due course to the appeal, to consider it sub&itted for decision, the sa&e to he
raffled i&&ediatel( and to refer the &otions to certif( the case to the #upre&e
Court to the 4ivision to 2hich the case &a( be raffled.
The case 2as eventuall( assi%ned to the Court of Appeals #pecial 4ivision of Five 'ustices
2hich pro&ul%ated the resolution of April 0+, 0,56, for2ardin% the case to this Court for
decision.
/n the issue of 2hether or not the lo2er court erred in not 9uashin% the infor&ation because it
2as defective for not includin% the second 2ife "not because of lacC of @urisdiction$, let us
scrutini<e the provision of Art. *+, of the Revised Penal Code, to 2it:
The penalt( of !rision $ayor shall be i&posed upon any !erson &ho shall
contract a second or subse'uent $arria(e before the for&er &arria%e has been
le%all( dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presu&ptivel(
dead b( &eans of a @ud%&ent rendered in the proceedin%s. "E&phasis for
e&phasis$
The cri&e of bi%a&( is co&&itted 2hen a person contracts a second or subse9uent &arria%e
before the for&er &arria%e has been le%all( dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been
@udiciall( declared as presu&ptivel( dead. The facts of this case clearl( sho2 that accused
Nepo&uceno &arried 4olores 4esiderio on March 8?, 0,.,, in Bala%tas, Bulacan, and that
about five &onths later, or on Au%ust 0., 0,.,, he a%ain &arried Nor&a 'i&ene< in Nor<a%ara(,
Bulacan. Accused undeniabl( contracted t2o &arria%es in the short span of five &onths, 2hich
he cate%oricall( ad&itted 2hen he pleaded %uilt(.
AppellantBs contention that the cri&e of bi%a&( entails the @oint liabilit( of t2o persons 2ho
&arr( each other, 2hile the previous &arria%e of one or the other is valid and subsistin% is
co&pletel( devoid of &erit. Even a cursor( scrutin( of Art. *+, of the Revised Penal Code 2ill
disclose that the cri&e of bi%a&( can be co&&itted b( one person 2ho contracts a subse9uent
&arria%e 2hile, the for&er &arria%e is valid and subsistin%. Bi%a&( is not si&ilar to the cri&es
of adulter( and concubina%e, 2herein the la2 "Art. *++, first and third pars., Revised Penal
Code, and #ec. +, Rule 00?, Rules of Court$ specificall( re9uires that the culprits, if both are
alive, should he prosecuted or included in the infor&ation. n the cri&e of bi%a&(, both the first
and second spouses &a( be the offended parties dependin% on the circu&stances, as 2hen the
second spouse &arried the accused 2ithout bein% a2are of his previous &arria%e. /nl( if the
second spouse had Cno2led%e of the previous undissolved &arria%e of the accused could she be
included in the infor&ation as a co-accused. Bi%a&( is a public offense and a cri&e a%ainst
status, 2hile adulter( and concubina%e are private offenses and are cri&es a%ainst chastit(. n
adulter( and concubina%e, pardon b( the offended part( 2ill bar the prosecution of the case,
2hich is not so in bi%a&(. t is, therefore, clear that bi%a&( is not si&ilar to adulter( or
concubina%e.
Ahen the accused raised the 9uestion of defective infor&ation for non-inclusion of the second
2ife as an accused for the first ti&e in a &otion to 9uash, the lo2er court ruled:
The infor&ation is clear and it is onl( the accused Ricardo Nepo&uceno, 'r. 2ho
contracted a second &arria%e, he bein% previousl( united in la2ful &arria%e 2ith
one 4olores 4esiderio, and 2ithout the sa&e havin% been le%all( dissolved, and
there bein% no sho&in( in the recitation of facts in the infor$ation to the effect
that )or$a *i$enez, the second &ife, had +no&led(e of the first $arria(e,and
despite said Cno2led%e she contracted the second &arria%e 2ith the accused> nor
is there any sho&in( that )or$a *i$enez had had a !re%ious $arria(e of her of
her o&n, 2e see no reason for the inclusion of Nor&a 'i&ene< , the second 2ife,
in the infor&ation. "E&phasis for e&phasis$
Ahether or not the second spouse, Nor&a 'i&ene<, should be included in the infor&ation is a
9uestion of fact that 2as deter&ined b( the fiscal 2ho conducted the preli&inar( investi%ation in
this case. That the fiscal did not include Nor&a 'i&ene< in the infor&ation si&pl( sho2s
absence of evidence that could &aCe her liable for the cri&e. =er non-inclusion in the
infor&ation as a co-accused of appellant Nepo&uceno in the cri&e of bi%a&( is not a defect in
the infor&ation filed a%ainst Nepo&uceno alone since her inclusion or not in said infor&ation
depended upon available evidence a%ainst her. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the
lo2er court co&&itted no error 2hen it refused to 9uash the infor&ation a%ainst the accused,
Nepo&uceno, on the &ere fli&s( %round that the second 2ife 2as not included therein.
A=EREF/RE, the decision of the trial court convictin% the appellant, Ricardo Nepo&uceno, 'r.
( Bernardino, and sentencin% hi& accordin%l(, as stated on pa%es one "0$ and three "*$ hereof, is
affir&ed 2ith costs a%ainst the accused-appellant.
#/ /R4ERE4.