G.R. No.

189754               October 24, 2012

LITO BAUTISTA and JIMMY ALCANTARA, Petitioners,

vs.
SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN, Respondent.

The granting of a demurrer to evidence should, therefore, be exercised with caution, taking into
consideration not only the rights of the accused, but also the right of the private offended party to be
vindicated of the wrongdoing done against him, for if it is granted, the accused is acquitted and the
private complainant is generally left with no more remedy. In such instances, although the decision
of the court may be wrong, the accused can invoke his right against double jeopardy. Thus, judges
are reminded to be more diligent and circumspect in the performance of their duties as members of
the Bench, always bearing in mind that their decisions affect the lives of the accused and the
individuals who come to the courts to seek redress of grievances, which decision could be possibly
used by the aggrieved party as basis for the filing of the appropriate actions against them.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, SB-18-CRM-0385 to 0387 For: Violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No.
3019-versus ROLANDO LUYUN CORTEZ, ET. AL.,

"Demurrer to the evidence is 'an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the
evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a
case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to
sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is
merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt, xxx Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a
demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or
official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the
evidence must prove; (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation
therein by the accused.' Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether
the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt

After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to grant accused-movants'
present motion. As aptly pointed out by the prosecution, without proffering any kind of explanation as
to how they were able to arrive at such a conclusion, herein accused-movants merely made a general
allegation in their present motion that the pieces of evidence that were presented by the prosecution
were insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the following allegations, to wit:

The purpose for obtaining leave of court is to determine whether or not the defendant in a criminal
case has filed the demurrer merely to stall the proceedings. Thus, while judicial action to grant prior
leave to file demurrer to evidence has been held to be discretionary upon the trial court, it is clear that
the reason behind for leaving it to the court's sound discretion is to * 8 determine whether the accused
is merely trying to delay the proceedings.
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Roland L.
Cortez, Marietta, M. Cruz and Jose C. Calixto is DENIED. Let the reception of defense evidence set on
August 28 and 29, 2019 proceed as scheduled, unless the aforementioned accused-movants manifest an
intention to file demurrer to evidence even without prior leave of court, in which case an order shall be
issued affording them a period of time within which to file the same.

R119 ROC

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the
action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution
the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without
leave of court.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce
evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused
waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence
for the prosecution. (15a)

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds
and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its
case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from
its receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-
extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to
evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself
shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.

"G.R. No. 213551 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner versus P/Supt. Jonathan Calixto, PICINSP.
Hermogenes D. Cabe, et al., respondents). -

On 24 July 2014, the CA dismissed the petition. Finding no grave abuse of discretion, the CA held that
while a demurrer to evidence is in the nature of a motion to dismiss, the rule on motions under Rule 15
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a notice of hearing, is inapplicable on the ground
that in criminal cases, the processes or procedures is governed by Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure.2 As found by the CA, a hearing is not required before the resolution of a demurrer
because based on the rules, the prosecution may file its opposition thereto, and if the motion is granted,
the prosecution again may file an opposition to the resolution. Stated otherwise, Section 23 does not
require the conduct of a hearing, but only requires the filing of opposition.

As already held, the rationale for a notice of hearing in a motion is to enable the court to determine
whether the adverse party agrees or objects thereto.3 In the case at bar, petitioner's opposition enabled
the court to determine its objections. Petitioner's opposition was duly heard by the court.
G.R. No. 161304               July 27, 2007

SPOUSES ARTURO CONDES and NORA CONDES, Petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and DR. PACIFICO A. DISTURA, Respondents.

It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his
adversary produced, is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain
the issue.26 The question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his evidence in chief,
has been able to establish a prima facie case.

G.R. No. 189754               October 24, 2012

LITO BAUTISTA and JIMMY ALCANTARA, Petitioners,

vs.
SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN, Respondent.

On November 14, 2006, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File the Attached Demurrer
to Evidence. In their Demurrer to Evidence, which was appended to the said Motion, Bautista
14  15 

and Alcantara alleged that the prosecution's evidence failed to establish their participation as Editor
and Associate Editor, respectively, of the publication Bandera; that they were not properly identified
by respondent.

G.R. No. 193150

LOIDA M. JAVIER, Petitioner,
vs.
PEPITO GONZALES, Respondent.

Gonzales filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence.   To this motion he
18

attached a Demurrer to Evidence,   which the RTC denied.  Following the denial, Gonzales
19 20

presented his evidence and witnesses and filed his Formal Offer of Evidence. 2

G.R. No. 237553

BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner

vs.
ANTONIO CHOA, Respondent

Later, on October 13, 2014, Choa filed a Motion for Leave (To file Demurrer to
Evidence),  attached to which was his Demurrer to Evidence.  In both pleadings, Choa argued:
16 17
It would thus appear that CAMDEN, represented by the accused, and the bank,
assuming arguendo without admitting the bank's theory of the case, are mutually creditors and
debtors of each other (Art. 1278, Civil Code). Consequently, their obligations are extinguished
proportionately by operation of law. Since the P20M plus being claimed by the bank is more than
offset by the P90M plus judgment against the bank, there is no basis for the claim of violation of
the Trust Receipts Law. At the very least, it would be impossible under such premises to build the
case beyond reasonable doubt.  (Emphasis in the original)
18

G.R. No. 191015               August 6, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner,

vs.
JOSE C. GO, AIDA C. DELA ROSA, and FELECITAS D. NECOMEDES,** Respondents.

In an Order dated December 19, 2006, the respondent RTC judge granted the private
respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. On January 17, 2007, the private
respondents filed their Demurrer to Evidence  praying for the dismissal of the criminal cases
7

instituted against them due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

G.R. No. 165496             February 12, 2007

HUN HYUNG PARK, Petitioner,

vs.
EUNG WON CHOI, Respondent.

After the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File
Demurrer to Evidence to which he attached his Demurrer, asserting that the prosecution failed to
prove that he received the notice of dishonor, hence, the presumption of the element of knowledge
of insufficiency of funds did not arise.

G.R. No. 140904               October 9, 2000

RENE S. ONG, MAGDALENO B. ALBARRACIN, JR., PETRONIO C. AALIWIN and J. O.

NERIT, petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents

On July 12, 1996, petitioners filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, attaching
thereto their demurrer.