G.R. No. 196508 - LEONARDO A. VILLALON AND ERLINDA TALDE-VILLALON, VS. AMELIA CHAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Resolution dated 3 March 2006 disqualifying Petitioners counsel to intervene and the Order dated 5 September 2006 dismissing Criminal Case No. 05-30485 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Public respondent is hereby inhibited from further hearing the case. This case is therefore REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City for RE-RAFFLE to another branch and for further proceedings. The trial court and public prosecutor are ORDERED to allow the private prosecutor subject to the latters control and supervision to intervene in the proceedings in order to protect the interests of Petitioner as a complaining witness. SO ORDERED . [17] Petition for review on certiorari with this Court With the denial of their motion for reconsideration [18] before the CA, the petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court and raised the following arguments: The Decision of the Court of Appeals gravely transgresses the petitioners constitutional right to due process of law, apart from being violative of the legal proscription against double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals grossly erred in granting the petition for certiorari insofar as the Resolution, dated 3 March 2006, of therein respondent Judge was concerned. The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 93907 is fatally defective in that, among other things, it failed to implead the People of the Philippines as a party-respondent in that case, hence, the same should have been dismissed outright. [19] Our Ruling We find no merit in the petitioners arguments. First, the petitioners argue that the RTCs September 5, 2006 order dismissing the bigamy case against them had 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 failed to file a separate or amended petition for certiorari to include the September 5, 2006 order as one of the assailed orders of the RTC. Based on this assertion, the petitioners contend that the CA, in ordering the remand and re-raffle of the bigamy case to another RTC branch, violates their right against double jeopardy. 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. This is apparent from the words used by the respondent in her certiorari petition before the CA where she raised the following supporting grounds: THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTION DATED 03 MARCH 2006 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-30485 WHICH HELD THAT NO CLAIM FOR CIVIL LIABILITY WAS DEEMED INSTITUTED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISQUALIFYING THE OFFENDED PARTYS COUNSEL FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE TRIAL OF THE CASE;