119. CABADOR VS.

PEOPLE Same; Same; Same; Same; A demurrer to evidence assumes that the
prosecution has already rested its case; Where the accused filed his motion to
G.R. No. 186001. October 2, 2009.* dismiss before he could object to the prosecution’s formal offer, before the trial court
ANTONIO CABADOR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, could act on the offer, and before the prosecution could rest its case, it could not be
respondent. said that he had intended his motion to dismiss to serve as a demurrer to evidence.—
Criminal Procedure; Demurrer to Evidence; Because some accused have in the A demurrer to evidence assumes that the prosecution has already rested its case.
past used the demurrer in order to delay the proceedings in the case, the remedy Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads: “Demurrer
now carries a caveat — when the accused files a demurrer without leave of court, he to evidence.—After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and the case shall be the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
considered submitted for judgment.—The trial proper in a criminal case usually has prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to the evidence filed by
two stages: first, the prosecution’s presentation of evidence against the accused the accused with or without leave of court.” (Emphasis supplied) Here, after the
and, second, the accused’s presentation of evidence in his defense. If, after the prosecution filed its formal offer of exhibits on August 1, 2006, the same day Cabador
prosecution has presented its evidence, the same appears insufficient to support a filed his motion to dismiss, the trial court still needed to give him an opportunity to
conviction, the trial court may at its own initiative or on motion of the accused object to the admission of those exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal offer.
dispense with the second stage and dismiss the criminal action. There is no point for And only after such a ruling could the prosecution be deemed to have rested its case.
the trial court to hear the evidence of the accused in such a case since the Since Cabador filed his motion to dismiss before he could object to the prosecution’s
prosecution bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The order formal offer, before the trial court could act on the offer, and before the prosecution
of dismissal amounts to an acquittal. But because some have in the past used the could rest its case, it could not be said that he had intended his motion to dismiss to
demurrer in order to delay the proceedings in the case, the remedy now carries a serve as a demurrer to evidence.
caveat. When the accused files a demurrer without leave of court, he shall be PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and the case shall be Appeals.
considered submitted for judgment. On occasions, this presents a problem such as    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.762
when, like the situation in this case, the accused files a motion to dismiss that, to the   UP Office of Legal Aid  for petitioner.
RTC, had the appearance of a demurrer to evidence. Cabador insists that it is not one   The Solicitor General for respondent.
but the CA, like the lower court, ruled that it is. ABAD, J.:
Same; Same; Motion to Dismiss; “Demurrer to Evidence” and “Motion to Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of
Dismiss,” Distinguished; Pleadings and Practice; To determine whether the pleading Appeals’ (CA) Decision of August 4, 2008 1 and Resolution of October 28, 20082 in
filed is a demurrer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must consider (1) the CA-G.R. SP 100431 that affirmed the August 31, 2006 Order3 of the Regional Trial
allegations in it made in good faith; (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed; Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
and (3) the primary objective of the party filing it.—This Court held in Enojas, Jr. v. The facts are not disputed.
Commission on Elections, 283 SCRA 229 (1997), that, to determine whether the On June 23, 2000 the public prosecutor accused petitioner Antonio Cabador
pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must before the RTC of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-00-93291 of murdering, in
consider (1) the allegations in it made in good faith; (2) the stage of the proceeding at conspiracy with others, Atty. Jun N. Valerio.4 On February 13, 2006, after presenting
which it is filed; and (3) the primary objective of the party filing it. only five witnesses over five years of intermittent trial, the RTC declared at an end the
_______________ prosecution’s presentation of evidence and required the prosecution to make a written
* SECOND DIVISION. or formal offer of its documentary evidence within 15 days from notice. 5 But the public
761 prosecutor asked for three extensions of time, the last of which was to end on July 28,
Same; Same; Same; Same; Speedy Trial; In criminal cases, a motion to 2006. Still, the prosecution did not make the required written offer.
dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the accused’s right to speedy trial.—In On August 1, 2006 petitioner Cabador filed a motion to dismiss the
criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the case,6 complaining of a turtle-paced proceeding in the case since his arrest and
accused’s right to speedy trial. This denial is characterized by unreasonable, detention in 2001 and invoking his right to a speedy trial. Further, he claimed that in
vexatious, and oppressive delays without fault of the accused, or by unjustified the circumstances, the trial court could not consider any evidence against him that
postponements that unreasonably prolonged the trial. This was the main thrust of had not been formally offered. He also pointed out that the prosecution
Cabador’s motion to dismiss and he had the right to bring this up for a ruling by the _______________
trial court. Cabador of course dropped a few lines in his motion to dismiss in 1 Rollo, p. 39. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and
paragraphs “11 (sic)” and 12, saying that the trial court “has no evidence to consider,” concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Mariflor P. Punzalan-
“the charge has no leg to stand on,” and that “the witnesses x x x had no knowledge Castillo.
of any connection with or any participation by the accused in the incident.” But these 2 Id., at p. 56.
were mere conclusions, highlighting what five years of trial had accomplished. 3 Id., at p. 100. Issued by Judge Ma. Theresa L. De La Torre-Yadao.

Page 1 of 3
 4 Also referred to as “Justice Valerio” in the Petition. Here, the pertinent portions of petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss read as
5 Rollo, p. 120. follows:
6 Id., at p. 75. “2. On November 9, 2001, the accused was arrested and subsequently brought
763witnesses did not have knowledge of his alleged part in the crime charged. to the Quezon City jail through a commitment order
Unknown to petitioner Cabador, however, four days earlier or on July 28, 2006 _______________
the prosecution asked the RTC for another extension of the period for its formal offer,   dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative
which offer it eventually made on August 1, 2006, the day Cabador filed his motion to after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to the
dismiss.7 evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
On August 31, 2006 the RTC issued an Order treating petitioner Cabador’s  If the Court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused
August 1, 2006 motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence. And, since he filed his may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without
motion without leave of court, the RTC declared him to have waived his right to leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case
present evidence in his defense. The trial court deemed the case submitted for for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
decision insofar as he was concerned. Cabador filed a motion for reconsideration of  x x x x
this Order but the RTC denied it on February 19, 2007.8 Cabador questioned the 11 Id., par. 2; see Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, G.R. No. 165496,
RTC’s actions before the CA but on August 4, 2008 the latter denied his petition and February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 502, 512.
affirmed the lower court’s actions. 9 With the CA’s denial of his motion for 12 347 Phil. 510; 283 SCRA 229 (1997).
reconsideration, on October 28, 2008 petitioner came to this Court via a petition for 765dated November 21, 2001 where he had been detained during the course of this
review on certiorari. case.
The issue in this case is whether or not petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss 3. The accused was arraigned on January 8, 2002 and trial began soon after.
before the trial court was in fact a demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court, 4. UP-OLA entered its appearance as counsel for the accused on January 20,
with the result that he effectively waived his right to present evidence in his defense 2005.
and submitted the case for decision insofar as he was concerned. 5.  On February 10, 2006, the Honorable Court terminated the presentation of
The trial proper in a criminal case usually has two stages: first, the prosecution’s evidence for the prosecution considering that the case has been going on for 5 years
presentation of evidence against the accused and, second, the accused’s already and during that period the prosecution has only presented 5 witnesses.
presentation of evidence in his defense. If, after the prosecution has presented its Moreover, x x x there had been numerous postponements due to failure of the
evidence, the same appears insufficient to support a conviction, the trial court may at prosecution to ensure the presence of its witnesses.
its own initiative or on motion of the accused dispense with the second stage and 6. In an order dated March 31, 2006, the Honorable court required the public
dismiss the criminal action.10 There is no point for the prosecutor to submit its formal offer of evidence within fifteen (15) days from receipt
_______________ of such order.
7  Petition, Id., at pp. 24 and 30. 7. On April 17, 2006, the public prosecutor was again absent so the
8  Id., at p. 107. presentation of evidence for the accused was reset to June 6, 2006.
9  Id., at p. 53. 8.  During the same hearing, the Prosecution was again granted an additional
10 SEC. 23 (Rule 119 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure). Demurrer to fifteen (15) days within which to file their formal offer of evidence.
evidence.—After the prosecution rests its case, the court may 9. On June 6, 2006, the public prosecutor again failed to appear and to file their
764trial court to hear the evidence of the accused in such a case since the formal offer of evidence. In an order, the Honorable Court again extended to the
prosecution bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The order prosecution an additional fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order within which to file
of dismissal amounts to an acquittal. their formal offer of evidence.
But because some have in the past used the demurrer in order to delay the 10.  On June 28, 2006, the Honorable Court issued an order granting the
proceedings in the case, the remedy now carries a caveat. When the accused files a prosecution a thirty-day extension, or until July 28, 2006 within which to file their
demurrer without leave of court, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to formal offer of evidence since the public prosecutor was on leave.
present evidence and the case shall be considered submitted for judgment. 11 On 11. Upon the expiration of the extension granted by the Honorable Court, the
occasions, this presents a problem such as when, like the situation in this case, the prosecution failed to file their formal offer of evidence.
accused files a motion to dismiss that, to the RTC, had the appearance of a demurrer 10. (Sic) Despite three (3) extensions, the prosecution failed to file formal offer
to evidence. Cabador insists that it is not one but the CA, like the lower court, ruled of evidence.
that it is. 11. (Sic) Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that “the court shall
This Court held in Enojas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections 12 that, to determine consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.” A formal offer is
whether the pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court necessary, since judges are required to base their findings of fact and their judgment
must consider (1) the allegations in it made in good faith; (2) the stage of the solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by
proceeding at which it is filed; and (3) the primary objective of the party filing it.

Page 2 of 3
766the parties at the trial (Ong vs. CA, GR No. 117103). Hence, without any formal date he filed his motion to dismiss.16 To say that Cabador filed a demurrer to evidence
offer of evidence, this Honorable Court has no evidence to consider. is equivalent to the proverbial blind man, touching the side of an elephant, and
12.  The charge against the accused has no leg to stand on. The witnesses that exclaiming that he had touched a wall.
had been presented by the prosecution testified mainly on the occurrences on the Besides, a demurrer to evidence assumes that the prosecution has already rested
night of the incident and had no knowledge of any connection with or any participation its case. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads:
by the accused in the incident. “Demurrer to evidence.—After the prosecution rests its case, the court may
13.  The hearings of the case have been delayed since 2001 through no fault of dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1)
the defense to the prejudice of the rights of the accused to a speedy trial, mandated _______________
by no less than Art. III, Sec. 16 of the Constitution. 14 People v. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 154218 & 154372, August 28, 2006, 499
14.  Since UP-OLA had entered its appearance in 2005, the case had been SCRA 688, 700-701, 708.
reset for twelve (12) times, most of which are due to the fault or absence of the 15 Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 496, 507; 257 SCRA 703, 713 (1996).
prosecution. For the five year duration of the case, the prosecution still has not 16 Rollo, pp. 24 and 30.
presented any evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 768on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2)
Meanwhile, the accused has been unduly stripped of this liberty for more than five (5) upon demurrer to the evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.”
years upon an unsubstantiated charge. (Emphasis supplied)
15. The accused was injured and debilitated in the course of his arrest which Here, after the prosecution filed its formal offer of exhibits on August 1, 2006, the
resulted in the amputation of his left leg. His movement is severely hampered and his same day Cabador filed his motion to dismiss, the trial court still needed to give him
living conditions are less adequate. To subject him to further delays when there is no an opportunity to object to the admission of those exhibits. It also needed to rule on
substance to the charge against him would tantamount to injustice.”13 the formal offer. And only after such a ruling could the prosecution be deemed to
It can be seen from the above that petitioner Cabador took pains to point out in have rested its case. Since Cabador filed his motion to dismiss before he could object
paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, “10 (sic),” 13, 14, and 15 above how trial in the to the prosecution’s formal offer, before the trial court could act on the offer, and
case had painfully dragged on for years. The gaps between proceedings were long, before the prosecution could rest its case, it could not be said that he had intended
with hearings often postponed because of the prosecutor’s absence. This was further his motion to dismiss to serve as a demurrer to evidence.
compounded, Cabador said, by the prosecution’s repeated motions for extension of In sum, tested against the criteria laid down in Enojas, the Court finds that
time to file its formal offer and its failure to file it within such time. Cabador then petitioner Cabador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to
invoked in paragraph 13 above his right to speedy trial. But the RTC and the CA speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence. He cannot be declared to have waived his
simply chose to ignore these extensive averments and altogether treated Cabador’s right to present evidence in his defense.
motion as a demurrer to evidence because of a few observations he made in On a final note, a demurrer to evidence shortens the proceedings in criminal
paragraphs “11 (sic)” and 12 regarding the inadequacy of the evidence against him. cases. Caution must, however, be exercised 17 in view of its pernicious consequence
_______________ on the right of the accused to present evidence in his defense, the seriousness of the
13 Rollo, pp. 75-76. crime charged, and the gravity of the penalty involved.
767 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the August 4, 2008 Decision and the
In criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the October 28, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 100431 are
accused’s right to speedy trial.14 This denial is characterized by unreasonable, REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the August 31, 2006 Order of the Regional Trial
vexatious, and oppressive delays without fault of the accused, or by unjustified Court of Quezon City, Branch 81 is NULLIFIED. The latter court is DIRECTED to
postponements that unreasonably prolonged the trial.15 This was the main thrust of resolve petitioner Antonio Cabador’s motion to dismiss based on the circumstances
Cabador’s motion to dismiss and he had the right to bring this up for a ruling by the surrounding the trial in the case.
trial court. _______________
Cabador of course dropped a few lines in his motion to dismiss in paragraphs “11  17 Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc.,
(sic)” and 12, saying that the trial court “has no evidence to consider,” “the charge has G.R. No. 143338, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 117, 135.
no leg to stand on,” and that “the witnesses x x x had no knowledge of any connection © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 prosecution had presented against him
to show in what respects such evidence failed to meet the elements of the crime
charged. His so-called “demurrer” did not touch on any particular testimony of even
one witness. He cited no documentary exhibit. Indeed, he could not because, he did
not know that the prosecution finally made its formal offer of exhibits on the same

Page 3 of 3