G.R.No.186001.October2,2009.

ANTONIO CABADOR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,respondent.

Criminal Procedure Demurrer to Evidence Because some accused

haveinthepastusedthedemurrerinordertodelaytheproceedingsinthe
case,theremedynowcarriesacaveatwhentheaccusedfilesademurrer
without leave of court, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to
presentevidenceandthecaseshallbeconsideredsubmittedforjudgment.
The trial proper in a criminal case usually has two stages: first, the
prosecutions presentation of evidence against the accused and, second,the
accuseds presentation of evidence in his defense. If, after the prosecution
has presented its evidence, the same appears insufficient to support a
conviction, the trial court may at its own initiative or on motion of the
accused dispense with the second stage and dismiss the criminal action.
There is no point for the trial court to hear the evidence of the accused in
such a case since the prosecution bears the burden of proving his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The order of dismissal amounts to an acquittal.
But because some have in the past used the demurrer in order to delay the
proceedingsinthecase,theremedynowcarriesacaveat.Whentheaccused
filesademurrerwithout leave of court, he shall be deemed to have waived
the right to present evidence and the case shall be considered submitted for
judgment. On occasions, this presents a problem such as when, like the
situationinthiscase,theaccusedfilesamotiontodismissthat,totheRTC,
had the appearance of a demurrer to evidence. Cabador insists that it is not
onebuttheCA,likethelowercourt,ruledthatitis.
Same Same Motion to Dismiss Demurrer to Evidence and
MotiontoDismiss,DistinguishedPleadingsandPracticeTodetermine
whetherthepleadingfiledisademurrertoevidenceoramotiontodismiss,
theCourtmustconsider(1)theallegationsinitmadeingoodfaith(2)the
stageoftheproceedingatwhichitisfiledand(3)theprimaryobjectiveof
the party filing it.This Court held in Enojas, Jr. v. Commission on
Elections, 283 SCRA 229 (1997), that, to determine whether the pleading
filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must
consider (1) the allegations in it made in good faith (2) the stage of the
proceeding at which it is filed and (3) the primary objective of the party
filingit.
_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

761

SameSameSameSameSpeedyTrialIncriminalcases,amotionto
dismissmaybefiledonthegroundofdenialoftheaccusedsrighttospeedy
trial.Incriminalcases,amotiontodismissmaybefiledonthegroundof
denial of the accuseds right to speedy trial. This denial is characterized by
unreasonable,vexatious,andoppressivedelayswithoutfaultoftheaccused,
or by unjustified postponements that unreasonably prolonged the trial. This
wasthemainthrustofCabadorsmotiontodismissandhehadtherightto
bringthisupforarulingbythetrialcourt.Cabadorofcoursedroppedafew
lines in his motion to dismiss in paragraphs 11 (sic) and 12, saying that
thetrialcourthasnoevidencetoconsider,thechargehasnolegtostand
on,andthatthewitnessesxxxhadnoknowledgeofanyconnectionwith
or any participation by the accused in the incident. But these were mere
conclusions,highlightingwhatfiveyearsoftrialhadaccomplished.
Same Same Same Same A demurrer to evidence assumes that the
prosecutionhasalreadyresteditscaseWheretheaccusedfiledhismotion
todismissbeforehecouldobjecttotheprosecutionsformaloffer,beforethe
trial court could act on the offer, and before the prosecution could rest its
case,itcouldnotbesaidthathehadintendedhismotiontodismisstoserve
as a demurrer to evidence.A demurrer to evidence assumes that the
prosecutionhasalreadyresteditscase.Section23,Rule119oftheRevised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads: Demurrer to evidence.After the
prosecutionrestsitscase,thecourtmaydismisstheactiononthegroundof
insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecutiontheopportunitytobeheardor(2)upondemurrertotheevidence
filed by the accused with or without leave of court. (Emphasis supplied)
Here, after the prosecution filed its formal offer of exhibits on August 1,
2006,thesamedayCabadorfiledhismotiontodismiss,thetrialcourtstill
needed to give him an opportunity to object to the admission of those
exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal offer. And only after such a
ruling could the prosecution be deemed to have rested its case. Since
Cabador filed his motion to dismiss before he could object to the
prosecutions formal offer, before the trial court could act on the offer, and
before the prosecution could rest its case, it could not be said that he had
intendedhismotiontodismisstoserveasademurrertoevidence.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

762
 UPOfficeofLegalAidforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.

ABAD,J.:
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari,assailing
the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of August 4, 20081 and
Resolution of October 28, 20082 in CAG.R. SP 100431 that
affirmed the August 31, 2006 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC)ofQuezonCity.
Thefactsarenotdisputed.
On June 23, 2000 the public prosecutor accused petitioner
AntonioCabadorbeforetheRTCofQuezonCityinCriminalCase
Q0093291 of murdering, in conspiracy with others, Atty. Jun N.
Valerio.4OnFebruary13,2006,afterpresentingonlyfivewitnesses
overfiveyearsofintermittenttrial,theRTCdeclaredatanendthe
prosecutionspresentationofevidenceandrequiredtheprosecution
tomakeawrittenorformalofferofitsdocumentaryevidencewithin
15 days from notice.5 But the public prosecutor asked for three
extensions of time, the last of which was to end on July 28, 2006.
Still,theprosecutiondidnotmaketherequiredwrittenoffer.
OnAugust1,2006petitionerCabadorfiledamotiontodismiss
thecase,6complainingofaturtlepacedproceedinginthecasesince
hisarrestanddetentionin2001andinvokinghisrighttoaspeedy
trial. Further, he claimed that in the circumstances, the trial court
could not consider any evidence against him that had not been
formallyoffered.Healsopointedoutthattheprosecution

_______________

1Rollo,p.39.PennedbyAssociateJusticeCeliaC.LibreaLeagogoandconcurred
inbyAssociateJusticesMarioL.GuariaIIIandMariflorP.PunzalanCastillo.
2Id.,atp.56.
3Id.,atp.100.IssuedbyJudgeMa.TheresaL.DeLaTorreYadao.
4AlsoreferredtoasJusticeValeriointhePetition.
5Rollo,p.120.
6Id.,atp.75.

763

witnesses did not have knowledge of his alleged part in the crime
charged.
UnknowntopetitionerCabador,however,fourdaysearlieroron
July28,2006theprosecutionaskedtheRTCforanotherextension
oftheperiodforitsformaloffer,whichofferiteventuallymadeon
August1,2006,thedayCabadorfiledhismotiontodismiss.7
OnAugust31,2006theRTCissuedanOrdertreatingpetitioner
Cabadors August 1, 2006 motion to dismiss as a demurrer to
evidence.And,sincehefiledhismotionwithoutleaveofcourt,the
RTCdeclaredhimtohavewaivedhisrighttopresentevidenceinhis
defense. The trial court deemed the case submitted for decision
insofar as he was concerned. Cabador filed a motion for
reconsiderationofthisOrderbuttheRTCdenieditonFebruary19,
2007.8CabadorquestionedtheRTCsactionsbeforetheCAbuton
August4,2008thelatterdeniedhispetitionandaffirmedthelower
courts actions.9 With the CAs denial of his motion for
reconsideration, on October 28, 2008 petitioner came to this Court
viaapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
The issue in this case is whether or not petitioner Cabadors
motion to dismiss before the trial court was in fact a demurrer to
evidence filed without leave of court, with the result that he
effectively waived his right to present evidence in his defense and
submittedthecasefordecisioninsofarashewasconcerned.
The trial proper in a criminal case usually has two stages: first,
the prosecutions presentation of evidence against the accused and,
second, the accuseds presentation of evidence in his defense. If,
after the prosecution has presented its evidence, the same appears
insufficient to support a conviction, the trial court may at its own
initiativeoronmotionoftheaccuseddispensewiththesecondstage
anddismissthecriminalaction.10Thereisnopointforthe

_______________

7Petition,Id.,atpp.24and30.
8Id.,atp.107.
9Id.,atp.53.
10SEC.23(Rule119oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure). Demurrer to
evidence.Aftertheprosecutionrestsitscase,thecourtmay

764

trial court to hear the evidence of the accused in such a case since
the prosecution bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond
reasonabledoubt.Theorderofdismissalamountstoanacquittal.
Butbecausesomehaveinthepastusedthedemurrerinorderto
delaytheproceedingsinthecase,theremedynowcarriesacaveat.
When the accused files a demurrer without leave of court, he shall
bedeemedtohavewaivedtherighttopresentevidenceandthecase
shall be considered submitted for judgment.11 On occasions, this
presentsaproblemsuchaswhen,likethesituationinthiscase,the
accused files a motion to dismiss that, to the RTC, had the
appearanceofademurrertoevidence.Cabadorinsiststhatitisnot
onebuttheCA,likethelowercourt,ruledthatitis.
ThisCourtheldinEnojas,Jr.v.CommissiononElections12that,
todeterminewhetherthepleadingfiledisademurertoevidenceora
motion to dismiss, the Court must consider (1) the allegations in it
made in good faith (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it is
filedand(3)theprimaryobjectiveofthepartyfilingit.
 Here, the pertinent portions of petitioner Cabadors motion to
dismissreadasfollows:

2.On November 9, 2001, the accused was arrested and subsequently

broughttotheQuezonCityjailthroughacommitmentorder

_______________

dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its owninitiativeafter
givingtheprosecutiontheopportunitytobeheardor(2)upondemurrertotheevidencefiled
bytheaccusedwithorwithoutleaveofcourt.

If the Court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may
adduceevidenceinhisdefense.Whenthedemurrertoevidenceisfiledwithoutleaveofcourt,
theaccusedwaivestherighttopresentevidenceandsubmitsthecaseforjudgmentonthebasis
oftheevidencefortheprosecution.
xxxx
11Id., par. 2 see HunHyungPark v. Eung Won Choi, G.R. No. 165496, February 12,
2007,515SCRA502,512.
12347Phil.510283SCRA229(1997).

765

dated November 21, 2001 where he had been detained during the course of
thiscase.
3.The accused was arraigned on January 8, 2002 and trial began soon
after.
4.UPOLA entered its appearance as counsel for the accused on
January20,2005.
5. On February 10, 2006, the Honorable Court terminated the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution considering that the case has
beengoingonfor5yearsalreadyandduringthatperiodtheprosecutionhas
only presented 5 witnesses. Moreover, xxx there had been numerous
postponementsduetofailureoftheprosecutiontoensurethepresenceofits
witnesses.
6.Inanorderdated March 31, 2006, the Honorable court required the
publicprosecutorto submit its formal offer of evidence within fifteen (15)
daysfromreceiptofsuchorder.
7.On April 17, 2006, the public prosecutor was again absent so the
presentationofevidencefortheaccusedwasresettoJune6,2006.
8. During the same hearing, the Prosecution was again granted an
additional fifteen (15) days within which to file their formal offer of
evidence.
9.OnJune6,2006,thepublicprosecutoragainfailedtoappearandto
file their formal offer of evidence. In an order, the Honorable Court again
extended to the prosecution an additional fifteen (15) days from receipt of
theorderwithinwhichtofiletheirformalofferofevidence.
10. On June 28, 2006, the Honorable Court issued an order granting
theprosecutionathirtydayextension,oruntilJuly28,2006withinwhichto
filetheirformalofferofevidencesincethepublicprosecutorwasonleave.
11.Upon the expiration of the extension granted by the Honorable
Court,theprosecutionfailedtofiletheirformalofferofevidence.
10.(Sic) Despite three (3) extensions, the prosecution failed to file
formalofferofevidence.
11.(Sic) Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the
court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. A
formalofferisnecessary,sincejudgesarerequiredtobasetheirfindingsof
factandtheirjudgmentsolelyandstrictlyupontheevidenceofferedby

766

the parties at the trial (Ong vs. CA, GR No. 117103). Hence, without any
formalofferofevidence,thisHonorableCourthasnoevidencetoconsider.
12. The charge against the accused has no leg to stand on. The
witnessesthathadbeenpresentedbytheprosecutiontestifiedmainlyonthe
occurrences on the night of the incident and had no knowledge of any
connectionwithoranyparticipationbytheaccusedintheincident.
13.Thehearingsofthecasehavebeendelayedsince2001throughno
faultofthedefensetotheprejudiceoftherightsoftheaccusedtoaspeedy
trial,mandatedbynolessthanArt.III,Sec.16oftheConstitution.
14. Since UPOLA had entered its appearance in 2005, the case had
been reset for twelve (12) times, most of which are due to the fault or
absence of the prosecution. For the five year duration of the case, the
prosecution still has not presented any evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, the accused has been unduly
strippedofthislibertyformorethanfive(5)yearsuponanunsubstantiated
charge.
15.Theaccused was injured and debilitated in the course of his arrest
whichresulted in the amputation of his left leg. His movement is severely
hampered and his living conditions are less adequate. To subject him to
further delays when there is no substance to the charge against him would
tantamounttoinjustice.13

ItcanbeseenfromtheabovethatpetitionerCabadortookpains
topointoutinparagraphs2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,10(sic),13,
14,and15abovehowtrialinthecasehadpainfullydraggedonfor
years.Thegapsbetweenproceedingswerelong,withhearingsoften
postponed because of the prosecutors absence. This was further
compounded, Cabador said, by the prosecutions repeated motions
forextensionoftimetofileitsformalofferanditsfailuretofileit
withinsuchtime.Cabador then invoked in paragraph 13 above his
righttospeedytrial.ButtheRTCandtheCAsimplychosetoignore
these extensive averments and altogether treated Cabadors motion
asademurrertoevidencebecauseofafewobservationshemadein
paragraphs 11 (sic) and 12 regarding the inadequacy of the
evidenceagainsthim.
_______________

13Rollo,pp.7576.

767

Incriminalcases,amotiontodismissmaybefiledontheground
of denial of the accuseds right to speedy trial.14 This denial is
characterized by unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delays
without fault of the accused, or by unjustified postponements that
unreasonably prolonged the trial.15 This was the main thrust of
Cabadorsmotiontodismissandhehadtherighttobringthisupfor
arulingbythetrialcourt.
Cabadorofcoursedroppedafewlinesinhismotiontodismissin
paragraphs 11 (sic) and 12, saying that the trial court has no
evidencetoconsider,thechargehasnolegtostandon,andthat
the witnesses xxx had no knowledge of any connection with or
any participation by the accused in the incident. But these were
mere conclusions, highlighting what five years of trial had
accomplished.
The fact is that Cabador did not even bother to do what is so
fundamental in any demurrer. He did not state what evidence the
prosecutionhadpresentedagainsthimtoshowinwhatrespectssuch
evidence failed to meet the elements of the crime charged. His so
calleddemurrerdidnottouchonanyparticulartestimonyofeven
onewitness.Hecitednodocumentaryexhibit.Indeed,hecouldnot
because, he did not know that the prosecution finally made its
formal offer of exhibits on the same date he filed his motion to
dismiss.16 To say that Cabador filed a demurrer to evidence is
equivalent to the proverbial blind man, touching the side of an
elephant,andexclaimingthathehadtouchedawall.
Besides,ademurrertoevidenceassumesthattheprosecutionhas
alreadyresteditscase.Section23,Rule119oftheRevisedRulesof
CriminalProcedure,reads:

Demurrertoevidence.Aftertheprosecutionrestsitscase,thecourt
maydismisstheactiononthegroundofinsufficiencyofevidence(1)

_______________

14Peoplev.Hernandez,G.R.Nos.154218&154372,August28,2006,499SCRA688,
700701,708.
15Guerrerov.CourtofAppeals,327Phil.496,507257SCRA703,713(1996).
16Rollo,pp.24and30.

768

onitsowninitiativeaftergivingtheprosecutiontheopportunitytobeheard
or (2) upon demurrer to the evidence filed by the accused with or without
 leaveofcourt.(Emphasissupplied)

Here, after the prosecution filed its formal offer of exhibits on

August1,2006,thesamedayCabadorfiledhismotiontodismiss,
thetrialcourtstillneededtogivehimanopportunitytoobjecttothe
admission of those exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal
offer.Andonlyaftersucharulingcouldtheprosecutionbedeemed
to have rested its case. Since Cabador filed his motion to dismiss
beforehecouldobject to the prosecutions formal offer, before the
trial court could act on the offer, and before the prosecution could
restitscase,itcouldnotbesaidthathehadintendedhismotionto
dismisstoserveasademurrertoevidence.
Insum,testedagainstthecriterialaiddowninEnojas,theCourt
findsthatpetitionerCabadorfiledamotiontodismissontheground
ofviolationofhisrighttospeedytrial,notademurrertoevidence.
Hecannotbedeclaredtohavewaivedhisrighttopresentevidence
inhisdefense.
Onafinalnote,ademurrertoevidenceshortenstheproceedings
incriminalcases.Cautionmust,however,beexercised17inviewof
its pernicious consequence on the right of the accused to present
evidence in his defense, the seriousness of the crime charged, and
thegravityofthepenaltyinvolved.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the August 4, 2008
Decision and the October 28, 2008 Resolution of the Court of
AppealsinCAG.R.SP100431areREVERSEDandSETASIDE,
and the August 31, 2006 Order of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 81 is NULLIFIED. The latter court is
DIRECTED to resolve petitioner Antonio Cabadors motion to
dismissbasedonthecircumstancessurroundingthetrialinthecase.

_______________

17ConsolidatedBankandTrustCorporationv.DelMonteMotorWorks,Inc.,G.R.
No.143338,July29,2005,465SCRA117,135.

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.