Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises › Criminal Procedure › Trial (Rule 119)
5. Demurrer to Evidence
5. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES VERSUS DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE
| CIVIL CASE | CRIMINAL CASE |
| NO need for leave of court for defendant to file demurrer to evidence | Leave of court is NECESSARY so that the accused could present his evidence if his demurrer is denied |
| If court finds plaintiff’s evidence insufficient, demurrer will be granted and complaint will be dismissed. This dismissal is appealable. | If court finds prosecution’s evidence insufficient, demurrer will be granted and judgment will be rendered acquitting the accused. The judgment is not appealable. |
| If plaintiff appeals and the judgment is reversed, the appellate court will decide the case on the basis of plaintiff’s evidence and the defendant loses his right to present evidence. | Judgment is NOT appealable by reason of the double jeopardy rule. |
| If court denies demurrer, defendant will present his evidence | If court denies demurrer, either of the following will happen: 1. If demurrer was WITH express leave of court, accused may present evidence; 2. If demurrer was WITHOUT leave of court, accused can no longer present evidence and the case is submitted for decision based on prosecution’s evidence. |
| The court cannot, on its own make a demurrer. | The court may make a demurrer on its own. (Rule 119, Sec. 23) |
Q: The Commission on Information and Communications Technology was going to implement a National Broadband Network Project. In line with this, Corp A, a Chinese corporation doing business in China, filed a proposal for such project. A month later, Corp B submitted another proposal for the project. NEDA studied both proposals, and decided to approve Corp A’s proposal. X was then charged with a violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019, or the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. X was accused of brokering the deal between Corp A and the Philippine Government for a fee, as seen in his meeting with several Corp A and government officers. The Sandiganbayan found that the prosecution was only able to prove that X brokered a collaboration between Corp A and Corp B, but not between Corp A and the government. With that, X was acquitted. The Sandiganbayan also denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, hence the petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. Was petitioner denied due process, which would allow the court to re-try the case without affecting X’s right against double jeopardy?
A: No. For double jeopardy to exist, the following requirements must be present: 1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; 2) a court of competent jurisdiction; 3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and 4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent. The case at bar meets all the requirements. Thus, the existence of double jeopardy in this case calls for the application of the finality-of-acquittal rule, which makes a judgment of acquittal unappealable and immediately executory upon its promulgation. The only exception to this rule is if there was grave abuse of discretion that led to a violation of the prosecution’s right to due process. This exception is not present in this case. The Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, which stripped it of jurisdiction to decide the criminal case against X. The petitioner was also not deprived of his day in court.
Similarities of Both Demurrer in a Civil case and a Criminal Case
Both are based on insufficiency of evidence presented by the plaintiff or the prosecution to warrant the grant of affirmative relief in favor of the plaintiff nor conviction of accused;
In both, the motion is filed after the plaintiff or the prosecution has presented evidence and closed his or its case.
Section 2. Action on demurrer to evidence. — A demurrer to evidence shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15.
The order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus before judgment.
Authorities
- RA 3019, Sec. 3
- Rule 119|Rules of Court, Sec. 23
- Rule 65|Rules of Court