People v. Londoño
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Isaac Londoño, was charged with rape before the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City for an alleged offense committed on or about December 4, 1982, against a 12-year-old, mentally retarded girl. Londoño pleaded not guilty, and after the prosecution presented its evidence, he sought leave to file a demurrer to evidence. 2. Procedural History: The Trial Court granted Londoño a period to file a demurrer to evidence. Despite obtaining several extensions, the demurrer was filed on March 9, 1987. The prosecution opposed it. On July 27, 1987, the Trial Court issued an order deeming the case submitted for decision, stating that Londoño had waived his right to present evidence by filing the demurrer. Londoño's subsequent motion challenging the constitutionality of the rule and praying for the promulgation of judgment to be set aside was denied on October 28, 1987. The judgment finding Londoño guilty and imposing reclusion perpetua was promulgated on January 26, 1988, after delays attributed to Londoño's failure to appear. Londoño filed his notice of appeal on the same day. 3. The Petition: The appeal hinges on the interpretation and application of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court concerning demurrers to evidence. Londoño's counsel argued that his client had not lost the right to present evidence by filing a demurrer, contending that the said section was unconstitutional as it infringed upon his right to present evidence. The Supreme Court, referencing its ruling in Oñas v. Sandiganbayan, applied the amended Section 15, Rule 119, which became effective after the demurrer was filed but before the appeal was resolved. This amended provision, when read in conjunction with Londoño's explicit reservation to present evidence upon denial of his demurrer, meant he did not waive his right to do so. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's orders and decision, remanding the case for the reception of the appellant's evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant, by filing a demurrer to evidence after being granted leave of court to do so, waived his right to present evidence in his behalf. Whether the amended Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which became effective after the filing of the demurrer but before the promulgation of the decision, should be applied retroactively to the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court deeming the case submitted for decision, denying Londoño's motion, and the decision promulgated on January 26, 1988. The case was remanded to the trial court for the reception of the appellant's evidence and further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of the right to present evidence by filing a demurrer: The Court reiterated the principle established in Oñas v. Sandiganbayan. When an accused files a demurrer to evidence without express leave of court, he waives his right to present evidence. However, when leave of court is sought and granted to file a demurrer, and the accused explicitly reserves the right to present evidence in the event the demurrer is denied, the accused does not lose the right to adduce evidence. In this case, Londoño sought and was granted leave to file the demurrer, and his subsequent motion implicitly indicated a reservation to present evidence if the demurrer was denied, aligning with the amended rule. On the applicability of the amended Section 15, Rule 119: The Court held that adjective statutes may be applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. The amended Section 15, Rule 119, which became effective on November 13, 1988, is more favorable to the accused as it clarifies the conditions under which the right to present evidence is waived. Since the case was pending and undetermined at the time of the amendment, the amended provision should be applied. The trial court's reliance on the old rule, which deemed the filing of a demurrer with leave as an absolute waiver, constituted grave error contrary to the applicable law. The Court emphasized that the amended rule was likely intended to clarify and, in effect, favor the accused in such situations, preventing a conviction based solely on prosecution evidence when the accused had a right to defend themselves under the amended procedural rules.
Main Doctrine
Filing a demurrer to evidence, when leave of court is granted, does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the right to present evidence if the amended rules of criminal procedure, which are favorable to the accused, are applicable to pending cases.