Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Goodland Company, Inc. Vs Co and Chan

    Uploaded by

    Jay Em
    This case discusses whether a demurrer to evidence was correctly granted. A demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal that cannot be withdrawn, except in cases of due process violations or grave abuse of discretion. Here, the trial court granted the demurrer, dismissing charges of falsification against respondents. Both appellate courts affirmed. The Supreme Court also denies the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as evidence supported dismissing the case and an acquittal cannot be overturned absent exceptions not present here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Goodland Company, Inc. Vs Co and Chan

    Uploaded by

    Jay Em
    79 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether a demurrer to evidence was correctly granted. A demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal that cannot be withdrawn, except in cases of due process violations or grave abuse of discretion. Here, the trial court granted the demurrer, dismissing charges of falsification against respondents. Both appellate courts affirmed. The Supreme Court also denies the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as evidence supported dismissing the case and an acquittal cannot be overturned absent exceptions not present here.

    Original Description:

    Goodland Company, Inc. vs Co and Chan

    Original Title

    Goodland Company, Inc. vs Co and Chan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether a demurrer to evidence was correctly granted. A demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal that cannot be withdrawn, except in cases of due process violations or grave abuse of discretion. Here, the trial court granted the demurrer, dismissing charges of falsification against respondents. Both appellate courts affirmed. The Supreme Court also denies the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as evidence supported dismissing the case and an acquittal cannot be overturned absent exceptions not present here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    79 views2 pages

    Goodland Company, Inc. Vs Co and Chan

    Uploaded by

    Jay Em
    This case discusses whether a demurrer to evidence was correctly granted. A demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal that cannot be withdrawn, except in cases of due process violations or grave abuse of discretion. Here, the trial court granted the demurrer, dismissing charges of falsification against respondents. Both appellate courts affirmed. The Supreme Court also denies the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as evidence supported dismissing the case and an acquittal cannot be overturned absent exceptions not present here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TOPIC: DEMURRER  The NBI later recommended that

    charges for falsification should be filed


    GOODLAND COMPANY, INC. vs. ABRAHAM against the Private Respondents.
    CO and CHRISTINE CHAN  An Information for Falsification of Public
    G.R. No. 196685 | December 14, 2011 | Document was later filed against the
    Carpio, J.: Respondents Co and Chan, and was
    raffled to the MeTC of Makati.
    Digested By: Dolar, Theodore Adriel S.  After the Prosecution rested its case,
    Respondents filed a Motion for Leave of
    DOCTRINE: A Demurrer to Evidence, when Court to File a Demurrer to Evidence
    granted, amounts to an acquittal which cannot with attached Demurrer to Evidence,
    be recalled or withdrawn, except when the claiming that the Prosecution failed to
    prosecution was denied due process of law or establish the second and third elements
    when such grant was attended by grave abuse of the crime.
    of discretion.  The MeTC granted the Demurrer,
    holding that while the Prosecution was
    FACTS: able to prove the first and fourth
     Petitioner Goodland Company, Inc., and elements of the crime, the second and
    Smartnet Philiipines, Inc., are third elements were not proven.
    corporations duly organized and existing  Both the RTC and the CA affirmed the
    in accordance with Philippine laws. Decision of the MeTC.
     Goodland is the registered owner of a  Petitioner elevated the case in a Petition
    parcel of land located in Pasong Tamo, under Rule 45.
    Makati City, containing an area of 5,801
    sq. meters (Makati property). ISSUE: Whether the Demurrer was correctly
     Both Goodland and Smartnet are part of granted by the MeTC.
    the Guy Group of Companies, owned
    and controlled by the family of Gilbert HELD:
    Guy. YES. Only questions of law may be
     By way of accommodation, Goodland raised in a petition for review under Rule 45.
    allowed the use of the Makati property However, Goodland insists that the petition is
    as a security to the loan of Smartnet meritorious and may raise questions of law and
    with Asia United Bank (AUB). fact as there is grave abuse of discretion on the
     Gilbert Guy, as VP of Goodland, was part of the MeTC for granting the Demurrer.
    allegedly made to sign a REM document
    in blank. Petitioner is incorrect. A judgment of
     Galvez, the executive officer of acquittal cannot be recalled or withdrawn by
    Goodland, handed the title of the Makati another order reconsidering the dismissal of the
    property to Gilbert after being reassured case, nor can it be modified except to eliminate
    that it would be turned over to AUB something which is civil or administrative in
    along with the blank REM document, nature. One exception is when the Prosecution
    and that it would serve only as a comfort is denied due process of law. Another exception
    document and could be filled up only is when the trial court commits grave abuse of
    when AUB gets the conformity of both discretion in dismissing a criminal case by
    Smartnet and Goodland. granting the demurrer to evidence.
     After about 2 years, Goodland found out
    that the REM signed in blank by Gilbert The present case does not fall within the
    had been filled up or completed and exceptions. Evidence is replete to prove that the
    annotated at the back of the title of the CA was correct in denying Petitioner’s appeal.
    Makati property. There was no showing that there was grave
    abuse of discretion in the CA’s affirmation of the
    dismissal of the criminal case. Grave abuse of
    discretion is present when an act of a court or
    tribunal is performed in a capricious or whimsical
    exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack
    of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
    so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
    of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a
    duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
    contemplation of law, as where the power is
    exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
    by reason of passion and personal hostility.

    PETITION IS DENIED.

    You might also like