TodayisSunday,April23,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.196508September24,2014

LEONARDOA.VILLALONandERLINDATALDEVILLALON,Petitioners,
vs.
AMELIACHAN,Respondent.

DECISION

BRION,J.:

Wereviewinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari1theJuly30,2010decision2andApril8,2011resolution3ofthe
CourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.93807.TheCAannulledandsetasidetheMarch3,2006resolution4and
September 5, 2006 order5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, Antipolo City, which disallowed the
privateoffendedparty'scounselfromparticipatingintheprosecutionofthepetitionersforbigamyanddismissed
thebigamycasefiledagainstthepetitioners,respectively.

FactualAntecedents

OnMay6,1954,therespondentAmeliaChanmarriedLeonBasilioChuainacivilceremonysolemnizedbythen
Judge Cancio C. Garcia of the City Court of Caloocan. The respondent claimed that her husband Leon Basilio
Chuaandthepresentpetitioner,LeonardoA.Villalon,areoneandthesameperson.

During the subsistence of his marriage to Amelia, Leon Basilio Chua, this time under the name of Leonardo A.
Villalon,allegedlycontractedasecondmarriagewithErlindaTaldethattookplaceonJune2,1993.Thismarriage
wassolemnizedbyJudgeRuthC.SantosoftheMunicipalTrialCourtofAntipolo,Rizal.

Amelia,whowasthenlivingintheUnitedStatesandcouldnotpersonallyfileacaseforbigamyinthePhilippines,
requested Benito Yao Chua and Wilson Go to commence the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. On
September13,2003,averifiedcomplaintaffidavit6allegingthecommissionofthecrimeofbigamywasfiledwith
theOfficeoftheCityProsecutorinAntipolo.Consequently,anInformation7wasfiledwiththeRTC,docketedas
CriminalCaseNo.0530485.Onarraignment,thepetitionerspleadednotguilty.

During the pretrial (or on February 6, 2006), Atty. Apollo V. Atencia appeared in behalf of Amelia, the private
offendedparty.OnFebruary20,2006,Atty.Atenciaformallyfiledhisentryofappearance8asprivateprosecutor,
withtheconformityandunderthecontrolandsupervisionofAssistantCityProsecutorGerardoP.Barot.

Leonardofiledanomnibusmotion9withtheRTCseekingtodisqualifyAtty.Atencia.HearguedthatAmeliacould
notberepresentedinthebigamycasebecauseshewasnotapartytothecase,asshedidnotfilethecomplaint
affidavit.HealsoarguedthatAmeliahadalreadywaivedherrighttofileacivilandcriminalcaseagainsthimand
hiscodefendantErlinda.Ameliaopposedtheomnibusmotion,10whilethepublicprosecutorjoinedthepetitioners
indisqualifyingAtty.Atenciafromappearinginthecase.11

In a resolution12 dated March 3, 2006, the RTC granted Leonardos omnibus motion. Trial of the case ensued
thereafter.

On March 27, 2006, Amelia filed a petition13 for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for the issuance of a
TemporaryRestrainingOrder(TRO)and/orWritofPreliminaryInjunction,withtheCA.Inaresolution14datedApril
19,2006,theCAissuedaTROenjoiningfurtherproceedingsonthecase.

DespitetheTROissuedbytheCA,trialofthebigamycaseproceededwiththepresentationoftheprosecutions
evidence, to which Leonardo filed a demurrer to evidence. In an order15 dated September 5, 2006, the RTC
dismissedthebigamycaseforfailureoftheprosecutiontoprovethepetitionersguilt.

PetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionwiththeCA
InherpetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionbeforetheCA,Ameliaallegedgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartof
theRTCwhenitissueditsMarch3,2006resolutionandproceededwiththebigamycasewithoutpermittingthe
participationofAtty.Atenciaasprivateprosecutor.

In a decision16 dated July 30, 2010, the CA granted Amelias petition and annulled the RTCs March 3, 2006
resolution disqualifying Atty. Atencia from participation in the case, and its September 5, 2006 order that
dismissedthebigamycaseagainstthepetitioners.TheCAruledthatthecrimeofbigamy,beingpublicinnature,
can be denounced by anyone, not only by the offended party, before the prosecuting authorities without the
offendedpartylosingherrighttorecoverdamages.Thus,theCAconcludedthatthetrialcourtcommittedgrave
abuseofdiscretionwhenitdidnotallowAtty.AtenciatointerveneandrepresentAmeliainthebigamycaseand
thatthetrialcourtdeniedAmeliaherrighttodueprocess.

Also, the CA ruled that the offended party could be deprived of the right to intervene in the criminal case only
when he or she expressly waives the civil action or reserves the right toinstitute one. The CA found no such
waiverfromAmeliaandheldthatAtty.AtenciasappearanceasprivateprosecutorwasproofenoughofAmelias
determinationtoenforceherclaimfordamagesinthebigamycase.

TheCAdisposedofthecertioraripetitionundertheseterms:

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheResolutiondated3March2006disqualifyingPetitionerscounselto
interveneandtheOrderdated5September2006dismissingCriminalCaseNo.0530485isANNULLEDandSET
ASIDE.Publicrespondentisherebyinhibitedfrom

furtherhearingthecase.ThiscaseisthereforeREMANDEDtotheRegionalTrialCourtofAntipoloCityforRE
RAFFLE to another branch and for further proceedings. The trial court and public prosecutor are ORDERED to
allowtheprivateprosecutorsubjecttothelatterscontrolandsupervisiontointerveneintheproceedingsinorder
toprotecttheinterestsofPetitionerasacomplainingwitness.

SOORDERED.17

PetitionforreviewoncertiorariwiththisCourt

With the denial of their motion for reconsideration18 before the CA, the petitioners filed the present petition for
reviewoncertioraribeforethisCourtandraisedthefollowingarguments:

A. The Decision of the Court of Appeals gravely transgresses the petitioners constitutional right to due
processoflaw,apartfrombeingviolativeofthelegalproscriptionagainstdoublejeopardy.

B.TheCourtofAppealsgrosslyerredingrantingthepetitionforcertiorariinsofarastheResolution,dated
3March2006,ofthereinrespondentJudgewasconcerned.

C.ThepetitioninCAG.R.SPNo.93907isfatallydefectiveinthat,amongotherthings,itfailedtoimplead
the People of the Philippines as a partyrespondent in that case, hence, the same should have been
dismissedoutright.19

OurRuling

Wefindnomeritinthepetitionersarguments.

First,thepetitionersarguethattheRTCsSeptember5,2006orderdismissingthebigamycaseagainstthemhad
already become final because it was not assailed by the respondent in her petition for certiorari before the CA.
The petitioners point out that the respondent only particularly assailed the RTCs March 3, 2006 resolution and
failedtofileaseparateoramendedpetitionforcertioraritoincludetheSeptember5,2006orderasoneofthe
assailedordersoftheRTC.Basedonthisassertion,thepetitionerscontendthattheCA,inorderingtheremand
andreraffleofthebigamycasetoanotherRTCbranch,violatestheirrightagainstdoublejeopardy.

The petitioners are mistaken. The review by the CA on whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion
encompassed, not only the issuance of the March 3, 2006 resolution,but all proceedings in the bigamy case
thereafter.ThisisapparentfromthewordsusedbytherespondentinhercertioraripetitionbeforetheCAwhere
sheraisedthefollowingsupportinggrounds:

1.THERESPONDENTJUDGEACTEDWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACKOR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTION DATED 03 MARCH 2006 IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0530485 WHICH HELD THAT NO CLAIM FOR CIVIL LIABILITY WAS DEEMED
INSTITUTED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISQUALIFYING THE OFFENDED
PARTYSCOUNSELFROMPARTICIPATINGINTHETRIALOFTHECASE
 2. THE HEARINGS OF THE BIGAMY CASE WHEREIN THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED ARE WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTION.20(Emphasisours)Evidently,theCAsreviewisnotlimitedtothe
RTCsMarch3,2006resolutionbutalsoincludedtheSeptember5,2006orderthatwasissuedbytheRTC
in the course of the proceedings on the bigamy case. Thus, the RTCs September 5, 2006 order, which
isstillthesubjectofreviewbythisCourt,hasnotattainedfinalityandtheCAsassailedorderofremanding
andrerafflingthebigamycasetoanothertrialcourtwouldnotviolatethepetitionersrightagainstdouble
jeopardy.

Also,weemphasizethattheRTCissueditsSeptember5,2006orderindefianceoftheTROissuedbytheCA.
TherecordsshowthattheCAhadissuedaTROonApril19,2006,whichshouldhaveprohibitedtheRTCfrom
further proceeding on the case. But the RTC, instead, continued with the presentation of the prosecutions
evidenceandissuedtheassailedSeptember5,2006order.

Underthiscircumstance,theRTCsSeptember5,2006orderwasactuallywithoutforceandeffectandwouldnot
serve as basis for the petitioners to claim that their right against double jeopardy had been violated. The RTC,
clearly, acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its September 5, 2006 order in view ofthe earlier TRO
issuedbytheCA.

Second, the petitioners argue that the CA gravely erred when it ruled that: the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing its March 3, 2006 resolution disqualifying Atty. Atencia as private prosecutor, and that Atty.
Atencias disqualification violatedthe respondents rights to intervene and be heard in the bigamy case. They
contendthat,evenwithAtty.Atenciasdisqualification,therespondentwasneverdeniedherrighttoparticipatein
theproceedingsandwasevencalledtostandasawitnessbuttherespondentneverappearedbeforethecourt
becauseshewasoutofthecountryduringthewholeproceedingsonthebigamycase.

Section 1621 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure22 expressly allows an offended party to
intervenebycounselintheprosecutionoftheoffensefortherecoveryofcivilliabilitywherethecivilactionforthe
recoveryofcivilliabilityarisingfromtheoffensechargedisinstitutedwiththecriminalaction.Thecivilactionshall
bedeemedinstitutedwiththecriminalaction,exceptwhentheoffendedpartywaivesthecivilaction,reservesthe
righttoinstituteitseparatelyorinstitutesthecivilactionpriortothecriminalaction.23

In this case, the CA found no suchwaiver from or reservation made by the respondent. The fact that the
1 w p h i1

respondent, who was already based abroad, had secured the services of an attorney in the Philippines reveals
herwillingnessandinteresttoparticipateintheprosecutionofthebigamycaseandtorecovercivilliabilityfrom
the petitioners. Thus, the RTC should have allowed, and should not have disqualified, Atty. Atencia from
intervening in the bigamy case as the respondent, being the offended party, is afforded by law the right to
participatethroughcounselintheprosecutionoftheoffensewithrespecttothecivilaspectofthecase.

Lastly, the petitioners argue that the respondents certiorari petition before the CA should have been dismissed
outrightbecauseitfailedtoimpleadthe"PeopleofthePhilippines"asapartyrespondent.

The respondents failure to implead the "People of the Philippines" as a partyrespondent is not a fatal defect
warrantingtheoutrightdismissalofherpetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionbeforetheCAbecause:(1)apetition
forcertiorariandprohibitionunderRule65isdirectedagainstanytribunal,boardorofficerexercisingjudicialor
quasijudicialfunctionsallegedtohaveactedwithoutorinexcessofitsorhisjurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction24and(2)thepetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionfiledbythe
respondentisaspecialcivilactionseparateandindependentfromthebigamycasefiledagainstthepetitioners.
Forthesereasons,the"PeopleofthePhilippines"neednotbeimpleadedasapartyinapetitionforcertiorariand
prohibition.

WHEREFOR,inviewoftheforegoing,weDENYthepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorariduetolackofmerit,
andherebyAFFIRMthedecisiondatedJuly30,2010andresolutiondatedApril8,2011oftheCourtofAppealsin
CAG.R.SPNo.93807.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO JOSECATRALMENDOZA
 AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourtrollo,pp.728.
2
Penned by CA Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and
SamuelH.Gaerlan,concurringrollo,pp.3247.
3
Rollo,p.4850.
4
Id.at100104.
5
Id.at138143.
6
Id.at105107.
7
Id.at108109.
8
Id.at112113.
9
Id.at114120.
10
InanOppositiondatedFebruary27,2006id.at121125.
11
InaCommenttotheOmnibusMotiondatedFebruary22,2006id.at126127.
12
Seenote4.
13
Rollo,pp.6895.
14
Id.at134137.
15
Seenote5.
16
Seenote2.
17
Rollo,p.46.
18
Id.at144158.
19
Id.at1427.
20
Id.at77.
 21
SEC.16.InterventionoftheoffendedpartyincriminalactionWherethecivilactionforrecoveryofcivil
liabilityisinstitutedinthecriminalactionpursuanttoRule111,theoffendedpartymayintervenebycounsel
intheprosecutionoftheoffense
22
EffectiveDecember1,2000,A.M.No.00503SC.
23
Section1,Rule111oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure.
24
SeeSections1and2ofRule65,RulesofCourt.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation