1) The legal framework (what “jurisdiction” means in a bigamy case)

In Philippine criminal procedure, “jurisdiction” in a bigamy case is usually discussed in three layers:

Subject-matter jurisdiction (which court level can try the case)
Territorial jurisdiction / venue (which place’s courts can try the case)
Prosecutorial jurisdiction (which prosecutor’s office conducts the preliminary investigation and files the Information)

These rules work together. A case may be dismissed (or the Information quashed) if it is filed in the wrong court or the wrong place.

Bigamy is punished under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The crime is committed by contracting a second (or subsequent) marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting (subject to the recognized exceptions/defenses discussed later).

2) Subject-matter jurisdiction: which court tries bigamy?

A. Bigamy is generally within the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

Bigamy carries the penalty of prisión mayor (a correctional penalty that can reach more than 6 years). Under the Judiciary Reorganization framework (B.P. Blg. 129, as amended), criminal cases are allocated primarily by the penalty range:

First-level courts (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) generally handle offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, subject to statutory exceptions.
RTC handles cases outside the first-level courts’ jurisdiction—commonly those where the imposable penalty exceeds that 6-year threshold.

Practical result: bigamy cases are ordinarily filed and tried in the RTC.

B. Family Courts do not “automatically” take bigamy

Family Courts (under the Family Courts Act, R.A. 8369) have exclusive original jurisdiction over specific family-related cases (e.g., certain petitions and crimes involving minors or family-related offenses enumerated by law). Bigamy is not typically one of the enumerated Family Court criminal jurisdictions. So, even though bigamy is “marriage-related,” it is generally treated as a regular RTC criminal case, not a Family Court case—unless local station assignments or special rules direct raffling to a particular branch (which is administrative, not jurisdictional).

3) Territorial jurisdiction and venue: where should a bigamy case be filed?

A. The core rule: file where the offense was committed, or where any essential ingredient occurred

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a criminal action is instituted and tried in the court of the municipality/city where the offense was committed, or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

This matters because bigamy involves events and records that can span different places:

The first marriage may have been celebrated in Place A.
The second marriage may have been celebrated in Place B.
Marriage licenses, civil registry entries, and PSA endorsements may involve Place C and Place D.

B. The common and safest venue in practice: where the second marriage was celebrated/contracted

Bigamy is consummated by the act of contracting the second marriage while the first is subsisting. For venue purposes, prosecutors and courts commonly treat the place where the second marriage ceremony was solemnized (i.e., where the second marriage was contracted) as the clearest and most defensible basis for territorial jurisdiction.

Practical result: The bigamy complaint is usually filed in the prosecutor’s office and later in the RTC of the city/municipality where the second marriage took place.

C. Can venue also be laid where the first marriage occurred?

Because the rule allows filing where any essential ingredient occurred, parties sometimes argue that the first marriage’s celebration (and its validity/subsistence) is an “essential ingredient,” potentially supporting venue where the first marriage occurred.

However, a major practical and doctrinal consideration is that the punishable act is the contracting of the second marriage. Many prosecutors therefore prefer the second-marriage venue to avoid venue challenges and to align with how the “actus reus” is localized.

Best practice: If choosing among possible venues, the venue tied to the second marriage’s celebration is typically the least contestable.

D. “Transitory” or “continuing” offense theory usually does not help

Bigamy is not commonly treated like crimes whose elements are committed in multiple places through continuing acts (e.g., certain deception offenses). The “continuing harm” of a second marriage does not usually transform bigamy into a continuing offense for venue purposes. The focal jurisdictional event remains the contracting of the second marriage.

4) Prosecutorial jurisdiction and preliminary investigation: which prosecutor’s office handles the case?

A. Bigamy requires preliminary investigation

Because bigamy is an offense cognizable by the RTC and carries a penalty above the threshold requiring preliminary investigation, the case typically begins with a criminal complaint filed with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor having territorial jurisdiction.

B. Which prosecutor has authority?

As a working rule, file with the prosecutor’s office that has territorial jurisdiction over the place where:

the offense was committed, or
an essential ingredient occurred.

Again, this usually means the prosecutor’s office of the place where the second marriage was celebrated.

C. The Information is filed in the RTC of that locality

After a finding of probable cause, the prosecutor files an Information in the proper RTC of the same territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction and venue problems most often arise when:

the Information is filed in an RTC not covering the place of commission/ingredient, or
the facts alleged in the Information do not sufficiently show why that court has territorial jurisdiction.

5) What the Information must allege to support jurisdiction and venue

Territorial jurisdiction is tested primarily by the allegations in the Information. A well-drafted Information in a bigamy case typically identifies:

the first marriage (date, parties, place, and that it was valid/subsisting); and
the second marriage (date and place where it was contracted/celebrated); and
the absence of lawful dissolution/annulment/declaration of nullity of the first marriage at the time of the second marriage.

If the Information clearly states that the second marriage was contracted in the city/municipality covered by the filing court, venue is straightforward.

6) Common jurisdiction/venue challenges and how they play out

A. Motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction/venue

An accused may move to quash the Information on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction (often meaning lack of territorial jurisdiction/venue). If the Information’s allegations do not place the offense (or an essential ingredient) within the court’s territory, the challenge is stronger.

B. Wrong venue vs. wrong court level

Wrong court level (e.g., filed in MTC instead of RTC): a more direct subject-matter jurisdiction defect.
Wrong place (territorial jurisdiction/venue): also fatal, but it is commonly attacked via the Information’s allegations and the rule that crimes must be tried where committed or where essential ingredients occurred.

C. Waiver concepts (practical caution)

While some objections related to procedure can be waived if not timely raised, subject-matter jurisdiction is never waived. Territorial jurisdiction/venue objections are often expected to be raised at the earliest opportunity. In practice, defense counsel typically raises venue early through a motion to quash or similar remedy.

7) Special scenarios affecting jurisdiction analysis

A. Second marriage abroad

If the second marriage was contracted outside the Philippines, prosecution in Philippine courts becomes difficult because Philippine criminal jurisdiction is primarily territorial, and the RPC’s extraterritorial provisions cover only specific categories (bigamy is not generally among them).

Practical result: If the act of contracting the second marriage occurred abroad, a Philippine bigamy prosecution may face serious jurisdictional obstacles.

B. Second marriage on a Philippine ship/aircraft

Certain crimes committed on board Philippine ships or aircraft can be subject to Philippine jurisdiction rules for such settings. Whether that applies depends on the exact facts (flag registry, location when contracted, and whether the ceremony is legally treated as “contracted” there). These are uncommon and fact-intensive.

C. Multiple possible “ingredient” locations because of civil registry steps

Civil registry recording, PSA endorsement, or later registration of the marriage is usually not treated as the “contracting” act itself. As a result, relying solely on where a marriage record was registered (if different from where the ceremony occurred) is generally a weaker venue theory than relying on where the ceremony occurred.

8) Interaction with civil cases (nullity/annulment) and the “prejudicial question” issue

Jurisdiction in bigamy often becomes entangled with civil proceedings involving marital status:

A. Civil actions that commonly intersect with bigamy

Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
Petition for annulment
Petition to declare presumptive death of an absent spouse (Family Code)
Related actions challenging the validity of the first or second marriage

These are filed in the proper family courts/RTCs as civil cases (depending on station), and they involve different jurisdiction rules from the criminal bigamy case.

B. Does a pending civil case stop the bigamy case?

Sometimes the defense argues a prejudicial question: that the criminal case depends on an issue that must first be resolved in a civil case (e.g., whether the first marriage is void). Courts examine:

whether the civil issue is determinative of guilt/innocence, and
whether it is logically antecedent to the criminal action.

A critical practical point in Philippine law is that a marriage alleged to be void is often treated as requiring a judicial declaration before a person can validly remarry (commonly associated with Family Code rules). This has historically affected how courts treat “void first marriage” defenses in bigamy prosecutions. The upshot is that not every pending civil petition automatically suspends a bigamy prosecution, and the effect depends heavily on the specific civil theory and timing.

9) Evidence and records that matter for establishing venue and jurisdiction

Because venue often turns on where the second marriage was celebrated, documentation typically used includes:

Marriage certificate of the second marriage showing the place of celebration and the officiant
Marriage certificate of the first marriage
PSA-issued copies / CENOMAR or advisory on marriages (as applicable)
Proof that the first marriage was still subsisting at the time of the second (e.g., absence of final judgment of nullity/annulment, no death certificate, etc.)

From a jurisdiction standpoint, the single most important fact to clearly establish is the place where the second marriage was celebrated.

10) Practical filing map (Philippine setting)

Step 1: Choose the proper venue Typically: the city/municipality where the second marriage ceremony occurred.

Step 2: File the complaint with the correct prosecutor Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor covering that locality.

Step 3: Preliminary investigation If probable cause is found, the prosecutor files the Information.

Step 4: Information filed in the proper RTC RTC covering the same city/municipality (or its judicial region assignment) where venue lies.

11) Quick reference: the jurisdiction “bottom lines”

Court level: Bigamy is ordinarily tried by the RTC (not MTC).
Place: The most defensible territorial jurisdiction is usually the place where the second marriage was contracted/celebrated.
Prosecutor: File with the prosecutor’s office that has authority over that same place (or another place where an essential ingredient occurred, if properly supported).
Information drafting: Must allege facts showing the offense (or an essential ingredient) occurred within the court’s territory—most clearly by stating the second marriage location.
Overseas contracting: If the second marriage was contracted abroad, Philippine criminal jurisdiction is commonly contested and may be unavailable depending on the exact circumstances.