On
Demurrer to evidence (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

Section 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. (15a)

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)


DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
- It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.

After The Prosecution Shall Have Rested Its Case, The Case May Be Dismissed In Any Of The Following Manner:
a. Court on its own initiative can dismiss the case after giving prosecution opportunity to be heard
b. Accused files demurrer with or without leave of court
c. If the demurrer is denied:
- With leave of court, accused can present his evidence
- Without leave of court, accused waives right to present evidence

With or Without Leave of Court
a) With leave
- if the motion is denied, he can still present evidence.
- The motion must be filed within a non-extendible period of 5 days after the prosecution rests its case.
- If leave is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice of the grant of leave of court.
- The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the demurrer.

b) Without leave
- if the motion is denied, he loses the right to present evidence and the case will be deemed submitted for decision

If there are two or more accused and only one of them presents a demurrer to evidence, without leave of court, the trial court may defer resolution thereof until the decision is rendered on the other
accused.

An order denying the motion for leave of court to file a demurer shall NOT be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. This is because demurrer is merely interlocutory. However, if there
was grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari may apply.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence without leave of court, the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution.

Bar Exam Question (2003)

Actions; BP22; Demurrer to Evidence (2003)

In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, the court granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence which he filed without leave of court. Although he was acquitted of the crime charged, he, however, was required by the court to pay the private complainant the face value of the check. The accused filed a Motion of Reconsideration regarding the order to pay the face value of the check on the following grounds: 
a) the demurrer to evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case; and b) at the very least, he was entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil liability. Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration. 

Suggested Answer;

(a) The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The ground that the demurrer to evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case was not correct because the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 included the corresponding civil action. (Sec. 1(b) of Rule 111).
(b) The accused was not entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil liability, because he filed his demurrer to evidence without leave of court. (Sec. 23 of Rule 119).

Bar Exam Question (2004)

Demurrer to Evidence; Contract of Carriage (2004)

AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of PBU, a public utility bus, died instantly on board the bus on account of the fatal head wounds he sustained as a result of the strong impact of the collision between the bus and a dump truck that happened while the bus was still traveling on EDSA towards Makati. The foregoing facts, among others, were duly established on evidence-in-chief by the plaintiff TY, sole heir of AX, in TY’s action against the subject common carrier for breach of contract of carriage. After TY had rested his case, the common carrier filed a demurrer to evidence, contending that plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient because it did not show 
(1) that defendant was negligent and 
(2) that such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision. 

Should the court grant or deny defendant's demurrer to evidence? Reason briefly. 

Suggested Answer:

No. The court should not grant defendant's demurrer to evidence because the case is for breach of contract of carriage. Proof that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision is not required. (Articles 1170 and 2201, Civil Code; (Mendoza v. Phil. Airlines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836 [1952]; Batangas Transportation Co. v. Caguimbal, 22 SCRA171 U 968]; Abeto v. PAL, 115 SCRA 489 [1982]; Aboitiz v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 95 [1984]).


Bar Exam Question (1998)

Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court (1998)

Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a petition for bail. The petition was opposed by the prosecution but after hearing the court granted bail to X. On the first scheduled hearing on the merits, the prosecution manifested that it was not adducing additional evidence and that it was resting its case. X filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of court but it was denied by the court.

1. Did the court have the discretion to deny the demurrer to evidence under the circumstances mentioned above? 
2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, can X adduce evidence in his defense after the denial of his demurrer to evidence? 
3. Without further proceeding and on the sole basis of the evidence of the prosecution, can the court legally convict X for Murder? 

Suggested Answer:

1. Yes. The Court had the discretion to deny the demurrer to the evidence because although the evidence presented by the prosecution at the hearing for bail was not strong, without any evidence for the defense, it could be sufficient for conviction.
2. No. Because he filed the demurrer to the evidence without leave. However, the trial court should inquire as to why the accused filed the demurrer without leave and whether his lawyer knew that the effect of filing it without leave is to waive the presentation of the evidence for the accused. (People vs. Fores, 62.) 269 SCRA
3. Yes. Without any evidence from the accused, the prima facie evidence of the prosecution has been converted to proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Alternative Answer:

If the evidence of guilt is not strong and beyond reasonable doubt then the court cannot legally convict X for murder.

Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court (2001)

Carlos, the accused in a theft case, filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of court. The court denied the demurrer to evidence and Carlos moved to present his evidence. The court denied Carlos’ motion to present evidence and instead judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. Was the court correct in preventing Carlos from presenting his evidence and rendering judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution? Why? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

Yes, because the demurrer to the evidence was filed without leave of court. The Rules provide that 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. (Sec. 23 of Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)


Bar Exam Question (2004)

Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court (2004)

The information for illegal possession of firearm filed against the accused specifically alleged that he had no license or permit to possess the caliber .45 pistol mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established the fact that the subject firearm was lawfully seized by the police from the possession of the accused, that is, while the pistol was tucked at his waist in plain view, without the accused being able to present any license or permit to possess the firearm. The prosecution on such evidence rested its case and within a period of five days therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence, in sum contending that the prosecution evidence has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so prayed that he be acquitted of the offense charged. The trial court denied the demurrer to evidence and deemed the accused as having waived his right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgment on the basis of the prosecution evidence. In due time, the court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly imposing on him the penalty prescribed therefor. Is the judgment of the trial court valid and proper? Reason.

Suggested Answer: 

Yes. The judgment of the trial court is valid. The accused did not ask for leave to file the demurrer to evidence. He is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. (Sec. 23 of Rule 119; People v. Flores, 269 SCRA 62 [1997]; Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 782 [1997]. However, the judgment is not proper or is erroneous because there was no showing from the proper office like the Firearms Explosive Unit of the Philippine National Police that the accused has a permit to own or possess the firearm, which is fatal to the conviction of the accused. (Mallari v. Court of Appeals &People,265 SCRA 456[1996]).


Section 24. Reopening


 Section 24. Reopening. — At any time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order grating it. (n)

At any time before finality of judgment of conviction, judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case reopen to avoid miscarriage of justice.