BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN, JR. v.

SALLY GO BANGAYAN

G.R No. 172777

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Consolidated petitions for review in certiorari; Stemmed from a complaint-affidavit

by respondent, Sally Go-Bangayan accusing Benjamin Bangayan Jr. of having committed the

crime of bigamy.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

That on March 7, 1982 Benjamin married Sally and had two children. Later on, she

found out that he had taken in his concubine a certain Resally De Asis Delfin whom he

subsequently married on January 5, 2001 under the false name Benjamin Z. Sojayco and

fathered two children. She then discovered that on September 10, 1972, Benjamin also

married Azucena Alegre.

The city prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the filing of information for

bigamy against Benjamin and Resally with which after arraignment, both petitioners

pleaded not guilty and filed separately their respective motions for leave to file a demurer

to evidence on September 8, 2003 which was granted by the RTC.

The RTC dismissed the criminal case against Benjamin and Resally for insufficiency

of evidence on Dec. 3, 2003. Sally on the other hand, elevated the case to CA, promulgating a

decision granting Sally’s petition on Mar. 14, 2006 and ordering a remand of the case to the

RTC for further proceedings.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

He was not legally married to Sally Go because of the existence of his prior marriage

to Azucena and that his marriage to Sally is inexistent due to the fact that no marriage

license was issued to both of them; that the prosecution failed and was unable to prove and

show and he and Benjamin Z. Sojayco were one and the same person; that he used a

fictitious name to contract marriage with Resally.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

That on Sept. 1979, Benjamin married Azucena and while the latter was outside the

Philippines, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with Sally. His father was against

it so in order to appease her father, they signed a marriage contract on March 1982. That

she have sufficient evidence of the alleged bigamy against Benjamin, such as the existence

of three marriages to her, Azucena, and Resally; the letters and love notes from Benjamin to

Resally and his admission of having a relationship with the latter.

THE ISSUE/s

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 OSG or the OCP of Caloocan

2. Whether petitioners’ right against double jeopardy was violated by the CA when it

reversed the decision of RTC dismissing the case against them

3. Whether the petitioners are guilty of the crime of bigamy

THE RULING

1. Petitioner Sally Go had no personality to file the petition for certiorari before CA

because the case against Benjamin and Resally is criminal in nature. It being so, only

the OSG or the OCP of Caloocan may question the RTC order of dismissal of the case.
 That only OSG and not private offended party has the authority to question the order

granting to demurrer to evidence in a criminal case.

2. The 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 to the RTC

order because it violated the petitioners’ right against double jeopardy. The CA erred

in ordering the remand of the case to the lower court for further proceedings

because it disregarded the constitutional proscription on the prosecution of the

accused for the same offense

3. That the petitioners are not guilty of the crime of bigamy, for its elements are:

i. that the offender has been legally married

ii. that the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse

is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the

civil code

iii. that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage

iv. that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for

validity

In this case, the 4th element is not present. The marriage license presented was not

authentic and the marriage between them was merely in jest and never complied

with the essential requisites of marriage.