Ganchero v. Bellosillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jesus Ganchero was charged with bigamy in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo. The information alleged that Ganchero contracted a second marriage with Alita Aranjuez in Davao City while his first marriage to Erlinda Soquatoso, solemnized in Iloilo City, was still valid and subsisting. Procedural History: Ganchero filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the CFI of Iloilo lacked jurisdiction because the crime of bigamy, as charged, was committed in Davao City where the second marriage occurred. The respondent Judge denied the motion to quash and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Ganchero filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the order of the respondent Judge for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Iloilo has jurisdiction to try a case for bigamy when the second marriage was celebrated in Davao, based on the fact that the first marriage took place in Iloilo.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, set aside the order denying the motion to quash, and ordered the dismissal of the case against the petitioner. The preliminary injunction was made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the CFI of Iloilo lacks jurisdiction because bigamy is committed only upon the celebration of the second marriage. Applying the definition in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court emphasized that the place of the first marriage is immaterial to the criminal act, intent, and responsibility of the accused. In criminal law, jurisdiction is determined by the locus of the offense or its essential ingredients; however, the Court clarified that the 'continued existence' of the first marriage has no definite locus. To assume the first marriage is an essential ingredient for venue would incorrectly imply that the accused intended to commit bigamy at the moment he entered into his first valid marriage. Relying on the definition of a continuous crime in People vs. Zapata and Bondoc, the Court determined that bigamy does not constitute a series of acts performed in different provinces impelled by the same criminal purpose. Therefore, since the act of contracting the subsequent marriage occurred in Davao, the action must be instituted and tried there, as the CFI of Iloilo is devoid of territorial jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The venue for the crime of bigamy is determined by the place where the second marriage was contracted, not where the first marriage took place, as the continued existence of the first marriage is not tied to a specific locus for the commission of the crime of bigamy.