Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    69 Bangayan JR v. Bangayan

    Uploaded by

    Nina
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order dismissing the criminal case against Benjamin Bangayan Jr. and Resally Delfin for bigamy. The trial court had granted the defendants' demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rested its case. Under the Philippine Constitution and jurisprudence, an acquittal resulting from a granted demurrer to evidence is equivalent to a judgment on the merits and cannot be appealed, as it would violate the right against double jeopardy. In this case, all elements of double jeopardy were present. The only instance where double jeopardy does not apply is if grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction can be proven, but the Supreme Court found

    Copyright:

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

    69 Bangayan JR v. Bangayan

    Uploaded by

    Nina
    59 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order dismissing the criminal case against Benjamin Bangayan Jr. and Resally Delfin for bigamy. The trial court had granted the defendants' demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rested its case. Under the Philippine Constitution and jurisprudence, an acquittal resulting from a granted demurrer to evidence is equivalent to a judgment on the merits and cannot be appealed, as it would violate the right against double jeopardy. In this case, all elements of double jeopardy were present. The only instance where double jeopardy does not apply is if grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction can be proven, but the Supreme Court found

    Original Description:

    Rule 115 Criminal Procedure -- Double Jeopardy

    Original Title

    69 Bangayan Jr v. Bangayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order dismissing the criminal case against Benjamin Bangayan Jr. and Resally Delfin for bigamy. The trial court had granted the defendants' demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rested its case. Under the Philippine Constitution and jurisprudence, an acquittal resulting from a granted demurrer to evidence is equivalent to a judgment on the merits and cannot be appealed, as it would violate the right against double jeopardy. In this case, all elements of double jeopardy were present. The only instance where double jeopardy does not apply is if grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction can be proven, but the Supreme Court found

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    69 Bangayan JR v. Bangayan

    Uploaded by

    Nina
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order dismissing the criminal case against Benjamin Bangayan Jr. and Resally Delfin for bigamy. The trial court had granted the defendants' demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rested its case. Under the Philippine Constitution and jurisprudence, an acquittal resulting from a granted demurrer to evidence is equivalent to a judgment on the merits and cannot be appealed, as it would violate the right against double jeopardy. In this case, all elements of double jeopardy were present. The only instance where double jeopardy does not apply is if grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction can be proven, but the Supreme Court found

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    69 BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN, JR. vs.

    SALLY GO BANGAYAN;
    Resally Delfin v. Sally Go Bangayan
    G.R. No. 172777. October 19, 2011, J. Mendoza
    TOPIC: R. 115 Against Double Jeopardy

    DOCTRINE/S:
    1. Court cannot review an order granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused on the ground of insuf􏰀ficiency of evidence
    because to do so will place the accused in double jeopardy.
    2. Jurisprudence allows for certain exceptions when the dismissal is considered final even if it was made on motion of the accused: (1) the
    dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested, which has the effect of a judgment on the
    merits and operates as an acquittal; (2) where the dismissal is made, also on the motion of the accused, because of the denial of his right to a
    speedy trial which is in effect a failure to prosecute.
    3. The only instance when the accused can be barred from invoking his right against double jeopardy is when it can be demonstrated that the
    trial court acted with GADALEJ.

    EMERGENCY RECIT: SHORT FACTS LANG.


    FACTS:
    1. Benjamin Bangayan Jr married Sally Go in 1982. Later on, Go learned that Bangayan had taken Resally Delfin as his concubine and he married
    the latter under the false name Benjamin Sojayco. Go later on also discovered that Bangayan married a certain Azucena Alegre in 1973.
    2. Information for the crime of bigamy was filed and the case was raffled to the RTC of Caloocan.
    3. After arraignment, during which Bangayan Jr and Delfin both pleaded not guilty, the prosecution presented and offered its evidence.
    4. Bangayan Jr filed his Demurrer to Evidence on two grounds: that he was not legally married to Sally Go because of the existence of his prior
    marriage to Alegre; and that the prosecution was unable to show the he and Benjamin Sojayco were one and the same person.
    5. In its December 3, 2003 Order, RTC dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence.
    6. Aggrieved, Go elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. CA GRANTED GO’S PETITION.
    7. Petitioners argue that the December 3, 2003 Order of Dismissal issued by the RTC on the ground of insufficiency of evidence is a judgment
    of acquittal. Thus, the prosecution is barred from appealing the said order because to do so would violate petitioners’ right against double
    jeopardy.
    8. Sally Go counters that petitioners cannot invoke this right because RTC decision acquitting them was issued with GADALEJ thus null and
    void.

    ISSUE/S: WON Bangayan Jr’s and Delfin’s right against double jeopardy was violated by the CA when it reversed the December 3, 2003 RTC Order
    dismissing the criminal case against them.

    HELD: YES. DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAD ALREADY SET IN.


    RATIO:
    A demurrer to evidence is 􏰀filed after the prosecution has rested its case and the trial court is required to evaluate whether the evidence
    presented by the prosecution is suf􏰀ficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
    If the court fi􏰀nds that the evidence is not suf􏰀ficient and grants the demurrer to evidence, such dismissal of the case is one on the merits, which
    is equivalent to the acquittal of the accused.
    Well-established is the rule that the Court cannot review an order granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused on the ground
    of insuf􏰀ficiency of evidence because to do so will place the accused in double jeopardy.

    The right of the accused against double jeopardy is protected under Art. III Sec. 21 of the 1987 Constitution.

    Double jeopardy attaches if the following elements are present:


    1. A valid complaint or information
    2. a court of competent jurisdiction
    3. the defendant had pleaded to the charge
    4. the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

    Jurisprudence allows for certain exceptions when the dismissal is considered final even if it was made on motion of the accused:
    1. the dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested, which has the effect of a judgment on
    the merits and operates as an acquittal
    2. where the dismissal is made, also on the motion of the accused, because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial which is in effect a failure
    to prosecute.

    The only instance when the accused can be barred from invoking his right against double jeopardy is when it can be demonstrated that the trial
    court acted with GADALEJ, such as where the prosecution was not allowed the opportunity to make its case against the accused or where the
    trial was a sham.

    IN THIS CASE, ALL FOUR ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY ARE PRESENT. A valid information for the crime of bigamy was fi􏰀led against the
    petitioners, resulting in the institution of a criminal case against them before the proper court. They pleaded not guilty to the charges against
    them and subsequently, the case was dismissed after the prosecution had rested its case. Therefore, the CA erred in reversing the trial court's
    order dismissing the case against the petitioners because it placed them in double jeopardy.

    An acquittal by virtue of a demurrer to evidence is not appealable because it will place the accused in double jeopardy. However, it may be
    subject to review only by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the trial court committed grave abuse of
    discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.

    RE: GADALEJ ALLEGATION: An examination of the decision of the trial court, however, yields the conclusion that there was no grave abuse of
    discretion on its part. Even if the trial court had incorrectly overlooked the evidence against the petitioners, it only committed an error of
    judgment, and not one of jurisdiction, which could not be rectifi􏰀ed by a petition for certiorari because double jeopardy had already set in.

    PETITION IS GRANTED. CA decision reversed and set aside. Order of RTC granting Demurrer to evidence reinstated.

    You might also like