VILLALON v.

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

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

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