Bernardo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Paz T. Bernardo was charged with four counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Two of these cases, Crim. Cases Nos. Q-93-46794 and Q-93-46795, were subsequently dismissed following an Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainant, Florita Ronquillo-Concepcion. This left Crim. Cases Nos. Q-93-46792 and Q-93-46793 to proceed. 2. Procedural History: After the prosecution rested its case on May 20, 1994, the defense, through counsel, requested leave to file a demurrer to evidence. The trial court denied this motion, considering it dilatory, and informed the defense that failure to present evidence would constitute a waiver of that right. The defense persisted in its request, leading the court to deem the case submitted for decision based on the prosecution's evidence. Petitioner then assailed the trial court's order before the Court of Appeals via certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, arguing grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court's order, directing the Regional Trial Court to set the cases for trial for the reception of the petitioner's evidence. Petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing her to demur to the evidence. She contended that her motion for leave to file a demurrer was merely a request for permission to submit a formal written demurrer later, and that the trial court's denial of this motion was not a denial of the demurrer itself. Petitioner asserted she should have been given the opportunity to file her demurrer and await its final denial before being compelled to present her evidence. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, setting aside the Court of Appeals' ruling and directing the trial court to decide the remaining cases based on the evidence already presented by the prosecution.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in considering the defense to have waived its right to present evidence after denying its motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the trial court to set the cases for the reception of the petitioner's evidence after the denial of the motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The ruling of the 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 criminal cases on the basis of the evidence already presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of the right to present evidence: The Court reiterated the rule on demurrer to evidence under Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. It clarified that when an accused files a motion to dismiss (demurrer to evidence) without express leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the prosecution's evidence. However, if the accused obtains prior leave of court, and the demurrer is denied, the accused retains the right to present evidence. The Court emphasized that the power to grant leave to file a demurrer is discretionary and intended to prevent dilatory tactics. In this case, the trial court denied the motion for leave to file a demurrer. Despite this denial, the petitioner insisted on filing the demurrer, which the trial court correctly considered as a waiver of the right to present evidence. The Court found that the trial court's action was not a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On the ruling of the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in directing the trial court to receive the evidence of the defense. This ruling was contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. Once the motion for leave to file a demurrer was denied, and the accused still insisted on filing a demurrer, the court's only recourse was to decide the case on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The appellate court's directive to allow the presentation of defense evidence after the denial of leave was an overreach and undermined the trial court's discretion. The Court reiterated that judicial action to grant prior leave is discretionary, but to allow evidence after denial of leave is not discretionary; it is a consequence of the waiver. Therefore, the appellate court's decision was set aside, and the trial court was ordered to decide the cases based on the prosecution's evidence.
Main Doctrine
When a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence is denied, the accused retains the right to present evidence. However, if the accused insists on filing a demurrer without prior leave or after leave is denied, the accused waives the right to present evidence, and the case is submitted for decision on the prosecution's evidence. The denial of a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, absent grave abuse of discretion, is generally not disturbed.