Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Villalon

    Uploaded by

    Tinn Ap
    This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Amelia Chan regarding a bigamy case filed against Villalon. The RTC dismissed the bigamy case after disqualifying Amelia Chan's lawyer from participating. The CA annulled the RTC's decision, finding that bigamy is a public crime that can be filed by anyone and that Amelia's lawyer should not have been disqualified. The CA's decision did not violate double jeopardy protections because the CA's review included the dismissal order, which was not yet final, and the RTC acted in defiance of a CA injunction. Allowing the case to be remanded and re-raffled would not violate double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Villalon

    Uploaded by

    Tinn Ap
    79 views1 page
    This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Amelia Chan regarding a bigamy case filed against Villalon. The RTC dismissed the bigamy case after disqualifying Amelia Chan's lawyer from participating. The CA annulled the RTC's decision, finding that bigamy is a public crime that can be filed by anyone and that Amelia's lawyer should not have been disqualified. The CA's decision did not violate double jeopardy protections because the CA's review included the dismissal order, which was not yet final, and the RTC acted in defiance of a CA injunction. Allowing the case to be remanded and re-raffled would not violate double jeopardy.

    Original Description:

    villalon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Amelia Chan regarding a bigamy case filed against Villalon. The RTC dismissed the bigamy case after disqualifying Amelia Chan's lawyer from participating. The CA annulled the RTC's decision, finding that bigamy is a public crime that can be filed by anyone and that Amelia's lawyer should not have been disqualified. The CA's decision did not violate double jeopardy protections because the CA's review included the dismissal order, which was not yet final, and the RTC acted in defiance of a CA injunction. Allowing the case to be remanded and re-raffled would not violate double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    79 views1 page

    Villalon

    Uploaded by

    Tinn Ap
    This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Amelia Chan regarding a bigamy case filed against Villalon. The RTC dismissed the bigamy case after disqualifying Amelia Chan's lawyer from participating. The CA annulled the RTC's decision, finding that bigamy is a public crime that can be filed by anyone and that Amelia's lawyer should not have been disqualified. The CA's decision did not violate double jeopardy protections because the CA's review included the dismissal order, which was not yet final, and the RTC acted in defiance of a CA injunction. Allowing the case to be remanded and re-raffled would not violate double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VILLALON v.

    CHAN Third, despite the non-appearance of Amelia Chan in the


    case, Sec. 16 of Rule 110 provides that an offended party
    FACTS: Amelia Chan was married to Leon Basilio Chua.
    may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the
    Amelia Chan claims that Leonardo Villalon (the petitioner)
    offense for the recovery of civil liability where the civil
    and his husband are one and the same person.
    action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
    During their marriage, Villalon contracted second offense charged is instituted with the criminal action. The
    marriage with Elinda Talde. civil action shall be deemed instituted with the criminal
    action, except when the offended party waives the civil
    Amelia Chan lived in the US and could not personally file action, reserves the right to institute it separately or
    a case for BIGAMY. She requested Benito Yao Chua and institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
    Wilson Go to commence the criminal proceedings against
    Villalon and Talde. A verified complaint0affidavit was filed In this case, there was no waiver or reservation made.
    before the OCP of Antipolo. Subsequently, an Information Thus, Atty. Atencia should be allowed to intervene on
    was filed before the RTC. Villalon and Talde pleaded not behalf of Amelia Chan, with respect to the civil aspect of
    guilty. the case.

    On pre-trial. Atencia appeared in behalf of Chan and Lastly, the failure to implead the People is not a fatal
    served as a private prosecutor, under the control and defect in a petition for certiorari and prohibition before
    supervision of the Asst. City Prosecutor. the CA because it is directed against any tribunal, board
    or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function who
    Villalon filed an OMNIBUS MOTION with the RTC seeking acted with grave abuse of discretion AND it is a special civil
    to disqualify Atty. Atencia. He claims that Amelia was not action separate and independent from the criminal case.
    a party to the case because she did not file the complaint- Thus, the People need not be impleaded.
    affidavit. He also claims that Amelia had waived her right
    to file a civil and criminal case against him and Talde. The CONCLUSION: There is no violation of the right against
    RTC granted the Omnibus Motion. double jeopardy.

    Amelia Chan filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition


    before the CA. The CA issued a TRO. Despite so, the
    bigamy case proceeded with the prosecution’s
    presentation of evidence. Villalon filed a DEMURRER TO
    EVIDENCE. The RTC DISMISSED the case for failure of the
    prosecution to prove Villalon and Talde’s guilt.

    CA granted the petition of Amelia and annulled the


    decision of the RTC which disqualified Atty. Atencia from
    participating and the order that the bigamy case has been
    dismissed. It opined that bigamy is a public crime and can
    be filed by anyone.

    ISSUE: WoN Villalon and Talde’s right against double


    jeopardy were violated

    HELD: NO. First, the CA’s review thru a petition for


    certiorari is not limited to the decision of the RTC to
    disqualify Atty. Atencia but also included the dismissal of
    the bigamy case. Thus, such decision has not yet become
    final and the CA can validly remand and re-raffle the case
    without violating the right against double jeopardt.

    Second, the decision of the RTC was in defiance of the TRO


    issued by the CA. Thus, it has no effect and could not serve
    as a basis of double jeopardy.

    You might also like