Research Demurrer
Research Demurrer
Research Demurrer
Demurrer to evidence is actually a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant after the plaintiff had
rested its case. Rule 119, Section 3 provides the rules in demurrer to evidence in criminal case,
to wit:
Sec. 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.
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. (n)
FUNCTIONS
A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of
law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing partys pleading.
It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for
purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be
true.
1. The prosecution in answering the demurrer can just file motion for leave to amend or
correct their pleading.
2. There is a risk of educating the plaintiff. It may cause plaintiffs counsel to rethink the
case, and come up with a stronger cause of action or legal theory. Therefore, in many
cases it may be wiser to hold your fire until the time of trial.
AS TO THE GROUNDS
Other than the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the rule does not provide any specific
grounds demurrer to evidence. However, please note that paragraph 3 of the foregoing rule
requires that motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its
grounds.
Below are the sample grounds to demurrer to evidence in cases where the demurrer were
granted by the SC:
Salazar vs People In this case, the demurrer alleged that she could not be guilty of the
crime as charged for the following reasons: (a) she was merely an indorser of the check
issued by Nena Timario, and Article 315, paragraph 2(d) on estafa penalizes only the
issuer of the check and not the indorser thereof; (b) there is no sufficient evidence to
prove that the petitioner conspired with the issuer of the check, Nena Jaucian Timario, in
order to defraud the private complainant; (c) after the first check was dishonored, the
petitioner replaced it with a second one. The first transaction had therefore been
effectively novated by the issuance of the second check. Unfortunately, her personal
check was dishonored not for insufficiency of funds, but for DAUD, which in banking
parlance means drawn against uncollected deposit.
Abraham Co and Christine Chan vs Carpio In this case, demurrer alleged that prosecution
failed to present sufficient and competent evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence
in favor of respondents. Respondents alleged (a) that the prosecution failed to establish
the second and third elements of the crime as the prosecution was unable to provide any
proof that private respondents caused it to appear in a document; (b) that Mr. Gilbert Guy
participated in an act; and (c) that the prosecution failed to establish that Mr. Gilbert Guy
did not participate in said act. Thus, respondents further alleged (d) that the prosecutions
evidence itself showed that Mr. Gilbert Guy signed the REM, delivered the original transfer
certificates of title to AUB and that Mr. Guy was duly authorized by Goodlands Board of
Directors to execute the REM. They likewise claimed that the prosecution failed to prove
that the REM was submitted as a comfort document as the testimonies of the witnesses
(referring to Galvez, Pulido, Calleja, Pelicano and Ignacio) proving this matter were hearsay
and lacked probative value. Also, the prosecution failed to present direct evidence showing
the involvement of private respondents in the alleged falsification of document
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and consequently submits the case for
judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
xxx
As a general rule, an order granting the accuseds
substantial justice.
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being to sustain the indictment for the crime of estafa through
considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
falsification of commercial documents, and that
Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set