RESEARCH ON RULES ON DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASE

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.

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES Advantages 1. Provides a prompt test of the plaintiffs sufficiency of evidence allowing the case to be disposed of more rapidly and at much less cost than going all the way through trial; 2. It will exposed to the judge clearly possible grounds for the decision in favor of the defense 3. Filing with leave of court to file demurrer even if denied will still grant presentation of evidence, affording accused due process. Disadvantages 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

IMPORTANCE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT After the prosecution rested its case and the accused believes that there was insufficiency of evidence, the accused should file a motion for leave of court to file demurrer of evidence. For if he does not secure leave of court and the motion for demurrer to evidence is denied, he is 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.