BANGAYAN, JR. v BANGAYAN  Sally Go elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari.

The CA
GR NO. 172777 AND 172792 promulgated its Decision granting her petition and ordering the remand of
OCTOBER 19, 2011 the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
By: GUZMAN  CA’s RULING: The CA held that the following pieces of evidence presented
Topic: DOUBLE JEOPARDY by the prosecution were sufficient to deny the demurrer to evidence: (1)
BANGAYAN, JR. v BANGAYAN the existence of three marriages of Benjamin, Jr. to Azucena, Sally Go and
Petitioners: BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN, JR. Resally; (2) the letters and love notes from Resally to Benjamin, Jr.; (3) the
Respondents: SALLY GO BANGAYAN admission of Benjamin, Jr. as regards his marriage to Sally Go and Azucena;
DELFIN v BANGAYAN and (4) Benjamin, Jr.’s admission that he and Resally were in some kind of
Petitioners: RESALLY DE ASIS DELFIN a relationship.
Respondents: SALLY GO BANGAYAN o CA further stated that Benjamin, Jr. was mistaken in claiming
Ponente: MENDOZA, J. that he could not be guilty of bigamy because his marriage to
Sally Go was null and void in light of the fact that he was already
DOCTRINE: married to Azucena.
Double jeopardy attaches if the following elements are present: (1) a valid complaint o A judicial declaration of nullity was required in order for him to
or information; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the defendant had pleaded be able to use the nullity of his marriage as a defense in a bigamy
to the charge; and (4) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted or the case against charge.
him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
ISSUE
FACTS 1. Whether Sally Go had the legal standing to file a petition for certiorari
before the CA despite the lack of consent of either the Office of the
 Sally Go-Bangayan filed a complaint for bigamy against Benjamin Bangayan
and Resally Delfin. Solicitor General or the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Caloocan
2. Whether petitioners’ right against double jeopardy was violated by the CA
 On March 7, 1982, Benjamin, Jr. married Sally Go in Pasig City and they had
when it reversed the December 3, 2003 RTC Order dismissing the criminal
two children.
case against them.
 Later, Sally learned that Benjamin, Jr. had taken Resally as his concubine
whom he subsequently married on January 5, 2001 under the false name,
HELD
“Benjamin Z. Sojayco.” Benjamin, Jr. fathered two children with Resally.
The Court finds merit in the petitions.
Furthermore, Sally discovered that on September 10, 1973, Benjamin, Jr.
1. Only the OSG, and not the private offended party, has the authority to
also married a certain Azucena Alegre in Caloocan City.
question the order granting the demurrer to evidence in a criminal case.
 After pleading not guilty, Benjamin and Resally both filed their motions for
2. Double Jeopardy had already set-in. Even if the trial court had incorrectly
leave to file a demurrer to evidence. Benjamin, Jr. filed his Demurrer to
overlooked the evidence against the petitioners, it only committed an
Evidence, praying that the criminal case for bigamy against him be
error of judgment, and not one of jurisdiction, which could not be rectified
dismissed for failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence of
by a petition for certiorari because double jeopardy had already set in.
his guilt.
 His plea was anchored on two main arguments: (1) he was not legally
RATIO
married to Sally Go because of the existence of his prior marriage to
 It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the
Azucena; and (2) the prosecution was unable to show that he and the
accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by
“Benjamin Z. Sojayco Jr.,” who married Resally, were one and the same
the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State.
person.
 The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal
 RTC’s RULING: RTC dismissed the criminal case against Benjamin, Jr. and
or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. A
Resally for insufficiency of evidence.
perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by Sally Go before the CA
 discloses that she sought reconsideration of the criminal aspect of the
case. Specifically, she prayed for the reversal of the trial court’s order
granting petitioners’ demurrer to evidence and the conduct of a full-blown
trial of the criminal case.
 Nowhere in her petition did she even briefly discuss the civil liability of
petitioners. It is apparent that her only desire was to appeal the dismissal
of the criminal case against the petitioners. Because bigamy is a criminal
offense, only the OSG is authorized to prosecute the case on appeal. Thus,
Sally Go did not have the requisite legal standing to appeal the acquittal of
the petitioners.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial
of due process.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The March 14, 2006 Decision and the May
22, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
December 3, 2003 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 126, Caloocan City, in
Criminal Case No. C-66783, granting the Demurrer to Evidence of petitioners
Benjamin B. Bangayan, Jr. and Resally de Asis Delfin and dismissing the case against
them is hereby REINSTATED.

Double jeopardy had already set-in

 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 sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the court finds that the evidence is
not sufficient 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
insufficiency of evidence because to do so will place the accused in double
jeopardy.
 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 grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, 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 doubtless present.
Valid information for the crime of bigamy was filed 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