4/12/2017 G.R. No.

119010

TodayisWednesday,April12,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.119010September5,1997

PAZT.BERNARDO,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,HON.OSCARL.LEVISTEandFLORITARONQUILLOCONCEPCION,respondents.

BELLOSILLO,J.:

ForanorderlyprocedureinthedispositionofcriminalcasestheRulesofCourtprovidesthattheprosecutionand
thedefensepresenttheirevidenceintheotherprescribedinSec.3,Rule119,afterwhich,evaluatingtheevidence
presented,thetrialcourtrendersjudgmenteitherofacquittalorconviction.UnderSec.15ofthesameRule,after
theprosecutionhasresteditscase,thecourtmaydismissthecaseonthegroundofinsufficiencyofevidenceeither
onitsowninitiativeaftergivingtheprosecutionanopportunitytobeheard,oronmotionoftheaccusedfiledwith
priorleaveofcourt.Ifthecourtdeniesthedemurrerormotiontodismiss,theaccusedmayadduceevidenceinhis
defense. When the accused files such motion to dismiss without express leave of court, he waives the right to
presentevidenceandsubmitsthecaseforjudgmentonthebasisoftheevidencefortheprosecution.

The new rule on demurrer to evidence was first incorporated in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which
significantly changed the ruling in People v. Mamacol 1 and Abriol v. Homeres 2 that when a motion to dismiss on
insufficiencyofevidenceisdeniedtheaccusedhasarighttopresentevidenceinhisbehalf.Earliertherulewas,whenafter
theprosecutionhasresteditscase,andtheaccusedfilesamotiontodismissoninsufficiencyofevidence,hewaivesthe
righttopresentevidenceandsubmitsthecaseforjudgmentonthebasisoftheevidenceoftheprosecution.3Therulewas
further modified in 1988 to the effect that only when the accused files a demurrer or motion to dismiss on insufficiency of
evidencewithoutexpressleaveofcourtthattheaccusedmaybedeemedtohavewaivedhisrighttopresentevidenceand
thecaseconsideredsubmittedfordecisiononthebasisoftheevidencefortheprosecution.Iftheaccusedhasobtainedprior
leaveofcourt,incaseofdenialofhismotiontodismiss,heretainshisrighttopresentevidenceinhisbehalf.Thecourtmay
also motu proprio dismiss the case on insufficiency of evidence, but before doing so, it should give the prosecution an
opportunitytobeheardandtoopposethemotion.4

Wearenowcalledupontoapplythenewruleondemurrertoevidence.

PatT.Bernardowasoriginallychargedwithfour(4)countsofviolationofB.P.Blg.22beforetheRegionalTrialCourt
of Quezon City, docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. Q934679295. Subsequently, private complainant, respondent
FlorlitaRonquilloConcepcion,executedanAffidavitofDesistancewhichledtothedismissalofCrim.CasesNos.
Q9346794andQ9346795,thusleavingCrim.CasesNos.Q9346792andQ9346793tobedisposedofbythe
trialcourt.

On20May1994,afterpresentingitslastwitness,theprosecutionresteditscaseandformallyoffereditsexhibits.
Thathearingwassetat8:30a.m.onthatdateforcontinuationofthereceptionoftheevidencefortheprosecution
asreflectedinthecalendarofthecourt.5Aftertheprosecutionhadformallyoffereditsevidence,thefollowingtranspired
inopencourt

COURT:

Alright,prosecutionhavingrested,defensewillnowpresentitsevidence.Proceed.

ATTY.MIRAVITE:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/sep1997/gr_119010_1997.html 1/6
4/12/2017 G.R. No. 119010
Your honor, we respectfully ask for a resetting, for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence
(emphasissupplied).

COURT:

Onwhatground?

ATTY.MIRAVITE:

On the ground that the prosecution failed to elicit the fact where the checks were issued and
wheretheywereactuallydishonored.Thisismaterial,yourhonor,forpurposesofdetermining
jurisdiction. Also, your honor, as we mentioned in our comments to the evidence presented by
the prosecution, there has been no valid notice of dishonor of the subject checks upon the
accused.So,uponthosegrounds,webelievethattheprosecutionhasnotdulymadeoutacase
againsttheaccused,andwefeelthosearesufficientforthedismissalofthecaseasagainstthe
accused.

COURT:

Soastoavoidreviewingtherecords,wouldyouadmitthatthereisnoproofwherethechecks
wereissuedandwheretheyweredishonored?

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

No,wewouldnotadmitthat,yourhonor.TheyweredishonoredactuallyinManila,butthecheck
wasdepositedinthebankofPARCREDITENTERPRISESinQuezonCity,anditwasnaturally
forwarded to the Philippine National Bank where the same was returned to the bank of PAR
CREDITENTERPRISEShereinQuezonCity.

COURT:

Wheredoesitappear?

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

ItisatthebackofExhibitA,yourhonor.

COURT:

Isitmark(ed)?

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

Your honor, it states here, deposited to Philippine National Bank, West Avenue, Quezon City
whichisatthecheckmarkedasexhibitA4.

COURT:

So,thattakesjurisprudence.TheelementshappenedinQuezonCity.

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

Yes,yourhonor.

ATTY.MIRAVITE:

Thenotationreadbycounsel,yourhonor,wasnotmarkedinevidence,whatwasmarkedisB4
appearingatthedorsalportionofthecheckwhichpertainsonlyfor(sic)thedishonor,theinitial
andthedate.Nothingwaspresentedastothefact.Ifthatisso,thatwasindeeddepositedat
WestAvenue,QuezonCity.

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

There is, your honor. The stamp received by the Cashier Division, PNB, Quezon City, West
Avenue.

COURT:

Anyway,wasthereanofferofthatdocument?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/sep1997/gr_119010_1997.html 2/6
4/12/2017 G.R. No. 119010
PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

Yes, there was an offer of exhibit A4, your honor. The record would show that we manifested
thatexhibitB4arestampsofthebankreadingDAIFoverwhichthereareotherstamps.

COURT:

YouaresayingthatthewordDAIFwasmarkedatthebackandofferedasproofofthedishonor
andtheplacewasevidence?

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

Yes,yourhonor,immediatelyontopoftheword,DAIF.

COURT:

Isthereanyevidencetestimonialthatthesewereencashedanddishonored?

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

Yes,yourhonor,thetestimonyofthiswitnessisveryclearthatthechecksweredepositedand
thesamewas(sic)dishonoredbythebank.

COURT:

Doyouadmitthattherewasnonoticeofdishonor?

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

Wedon'tadmitthat,yourhonor.Infact,thereareadmissionsinhandwritingregardingtheclaim.

COURT:

Isthereanyevidencepresentedthatthesecheckswerenotpaiduptonow?

PRIVATEPROSECUTOR:

Yes, your honor. First, is the oral testimony of the witness, that it has not been paid second,
exhibits1and11,whichistheComplaintAffidavitofthewitness.

COURT:

Alright,inviewoftheobjections,andinviewofthemanifestationsoftheprivateprosecutor,the
defense grounds for demurrer, the same not being well taken is hereby DENIED (emphasis
supplied).Youwillnowpresentyourevidence.

ATTY.MIRAVITE:

Ifyourhonorplease,maywejustaskforareconsideration(emphasissupplied)?

COURT:

If you will waive your right to present your evidence, the Court will give you a period to file a
demurrer to evidence. And, if you don't present your evidence now, you will be considered to
havewaivedyourrighttopresentevidence(emphasissupplied).

xxxxxxxxx

ATTY.MIRAVITE:

If your honor please, we would like to reiterate our motion to file a demurrer to evidence
(emphasissupplied)?

COURT:

Butyouhavealreadyorallymadethatdemurrerwhichhasbeendenied(emphasissupplied).

ATTY.MIRAVITE:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/sep1997/gr_119010_1997.html 3/6
4/12/2017 G.R. No. 119010
Inwhichcaseyourhonor,ifthereisnoleaveofcourt,wewillbefilingourdemurrertoevidence,
yourhonor(emphasissupplied).

COURT:

That is tantamount to postpone (sic) this case. The Court considers that motion dilatory
(emphasissupplied).

ATTY.MIRAVITE:

Your honor, I think within the option of the parties to take remedies and at this point, we did
prepareforourpurposes,thatinsteadofpresentingtheaccusedorpresentingourwitnesses,we
wouldjustprefertomoveforademurrertoevidence(emphasissupplied).

COURT:

Youmayincludethatinyourmotionforreconsideration.Alright,theprosecutionhavingrested,
andthedefensehavingbeenconsideredtohavewaivedhisrighttopresenthisevidence,this
caseisdeemedsubmittedfordecision.SetthepromulgationofthiscasetoJune6,1994at8:30
o'clockinthemorning(emphasissupplied).6

PetitionerassailedtheOrderofrespondentjudgehereinbeforeimmediatelyquotedbeforetheCourtofAppealsby
way of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Petitioner argued that the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretioninconsideringhertohavewaivedherrighttopresentevidenceafterthedenialofhermotionforleaveto
filedemurrertoevidence.

On30September1994theCourtofAppealsrenderedadecisionmodifyingineffectthatportionofthequestioned
OrderoftheRTCBr.97,QuezonCity,of20May1994whichstatesthat"thedefense having beenconsideredto
havewaivedherrighttopresentherevidence,thiscaseisdeemedsubmittedfordecision"7bydirectingthetrialcourt
to set Crim. Cases Nos. Q9346792 and Q93467938"for trial for reception of evidence for the petitioner." 9 Petitioner
movedforpartialreconsiderationofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsbuthermotionwasdeniedon7February1995.

PetitionerBernardofiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsonthe
groundthatwhenitrefusedtoallowpetitionertodemurtotheevidencetheappellatecourtdecidedthematternotin
accordancewithlawandapplicabledecisionsofthisCourt.10Petitionersubmitsthatwhenhercounselmovedforleave
to file a demurrer to evidence on 20 May 1994 this meant that she intended to make a written demurrer after extensive
researchandwithproperauthoritiestosupportthesamethatwhenthetrialcourtdeniedhermotion,itwasineffectadenial
onlyofthemotionforleavetofiledemurrertoevidenceandnotthedemurrertoevidenceitselfand,therefore,theorderof
respondentappellatecourtallowingpetitionertopresentherevidencewaspremature.Petitionerfurthercontendsthatshe
shouldfirstbegiventheopportunitytofileherdemurrertoevidenceandwaitforitsdenialwithfinalitybeforeshecouldbe
directedtopresentherevidencebeforethetrialcourt.11

We cannot sustain petitioner. As the trial court observed, her move, expressed through counsel, was merely
"dilatory." 12 But neither can we affirm the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals directing the trial court to receive the
evidenceofthedefenseafteritsmotionforleavetofileademurrertoevidencewasdenied.Itiscontrarytotheletterand
spiritofSec.15,Rule119,oftheRulesofCourt.

Theimplicationsandconsequencesofobtainingpriorleavebeforetheaccusedfilesademurrertoevidencewere
discussed by the Committee on the Revision of the Rules as reflected in its Minutes of 18 February 1997. Mr.
JusticeJoseY.Feria,CoChairmanoftheCommittee,explained

ObjectionswereraisedagainstthenewRuleonthegroundthatitwasprejudicialtotheaccused.Hence,the
presentamendedprovisionwasadopted.Itisonlywhentheaccusedfilessuchamotiontodismisswithout
expressleaveofcourtthathewaivestherighttopresentevidenceandsubmitsthecaseforjudgmentonthe
basisoftheevidencefortheprosecution.....13

ChiefJusticeAndresR.Narvasa,ChairmanoftheCommittee,suggested
that

...theremaybeinstanceswhereitisveryplainthattheevidenceisinsufficient,buttherearealsoinstances
wherethecourtisindoubt....itisthecourtthatwillnowdeterminewhetherademurrershouldbefiledor
notaftergettingtheopinionofbothsides....Iftheaccusedasksforleaveofcourtandthecourtsupportsit,
it is good but . . . if it finds the motion dilatory, then it denies it. But . . . there should be no waiver if the
demurreriswithleaveofcourt,becausetheremaybeasituationwherethecourtitselfmaywanttodismiss
thecase....Ifleaveisdenied,andtheaccusedstillfilesthedemurrer,thenthereiswaiver(emphasis
supplied).14

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/sep1997/gr_119010_1997.html 4/6
4/12/2017 G.R. No. 119010
The Committee finally approved the following propositions of the Chief Justice: (a) The court on its initiative can
dismissthecaseaftergivingpriornoticetotheprosecution(b)Theaccusedcanfileademurreronlyifheisgranted
priorleaveofcourt(c)Ifthemotionforleaveorthedemurrerisdenied,theaccusedcanpresenthisevidence,and
thereisnowaiverand,(d)Iftheaccusedfilesademurrerwithoutleave,hisrighttopresentevidenceiswaived.15

Infine,underthenewruleondemurrertoevidencetheaccusedhastherighttofileademurrertoevidenceafterthe
prosecutionhasresteditscase.Iftheaccusedobtainedpriorleaveofcourtbeforefilinghisdemurrer,hecanstill
presentevidenceifhisdemurrerisdenied.However,ifhedemurswithoutpriorleaveofcourt,orafterhismotionfor
leave is denied, he waives his right to present evidence and submits the case for decision on the basis of the
evidencefortheprosecution.Thispowertograntleavetotheaccusedtofileademurrerisaddressedtothesound
discretionofthetrialcourt.Thepurposeistodeterminewhethertheaccusedinfilinghisdemurrerismerelystalling
theproceedings.16

Inthecaseatbar,petitioneradmitsthatinthehearingof20May1994thetrialcourtdeniedhermotionforleaveto
fileademurrertoevidence.Insuchcase,theonlyrightpetitionerhasunderSec.15,Rule119,oftheRulesofCourt
afterhavingbeendeniedleavetosubmitademurreristoadduceevidenceinherdefense.However,evenwithout
expressleaveofthetrialcourt,nay,afterhermotionforleavewasdenied,petitionerinsistedonfilingademurrer
insteadofpresentingevidenceinherdefense.

Judicialactiontograntpriorleavetofiledemurrertoevidenceisdiscretionaryuponthetrialcourt.Buttoallowthe
accusedtopresentevidenceafterhewasdeniedpriorleavetofiledemurrerisnotdiscretionary.Oncepriorleaveis
deniedandtheaccusedstillfileshisdemurrertoevidenceormotiontodismiss,thecourtnolongerhasdiscretionto
allowtheaccusedtopresentevidence.Theonlyrecourseleftforthecourtistodecidethecaseonthebasisofthe
evidence presented by the prosecution. And, unless there is grave abuse thereof amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction,whichisnotpresentintheinstantcase,thetrialcourt'sdenialofpriorleavetofiledemurrertoevidence
ormotiontodismissmaynotbedisturbed.17However,anyjudgmentofconvictionbyatrialcourtmaystillbeelevatedby
theaccusedtotheappellatecourt.18

WHEREFORE,thePetitiontoallowpetitionertofileademurrertoevidenceisDENIED.Therulingofrespondent
Court of Appeals directing the trial court to hear the evidence of the accused is SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City is directed to decide the remaining Crim. Cases Nos. Q9346792 and Q9346793 on the
basisoftheevidencealreadypresentedbytheprosecution.

SOORDERED.

Vitug,KapunanandHermosisima,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

181Phil.543(1948).

284Phil.525(1949).

3Ocampov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.79060,8December1989,180SCRA27.

4Herrera,OscarM.,RemedialLaw,Vol.IV,Rules110127,1995Ed.,pp.510511.

5Rollo,p.36.

6TSN,20May1994,pp.1621.

7Rollo,pp.2940.

8NotCrim.CasesNo.Q934746567seeRecordsoftheRTCBr.97,QuezonCity,p.60.

9DecisionofrespondentCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.34219,30September1994,p.12Rollo,
p.40.

10Rollo,p.20.

11Id.,pp.2026.

12SeeNote6.

13Gupit,Fortunato,Jr.,The1988AmendmentstotheRulesonCriminalProcedure,1989Ed.,p.87,
citingFeria,1988Amendmentstothe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure,PhilippineLegalStudies,
SeriesNo.3,p.28.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/sep1997/gr_119010_1997.html 5/6
4/12/2017 G.R. No. 119010
14Gupit,op,cit.,pp.8889.

15Gupit,op.cit.,pp.23.

16Peoplev.Mahinay,G.R.No.109613,17July1995,246SCRA451,457.

17Peoplev.Mercado,No.L33492,30March1988,159SCRA453.

18Cruzv.People,G.R.No.67228,9October1996,144SCRA677.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/sep1997/gr_119010_1997.html 6/6