Demurrer to evidence in criminal cases

Dear PAO,

I filed a criminal case for estafa against a former handler of an “investment scheme” who promised that my investment would generate certain earnings in a short period of time. However, after we presented our witnesses and evidence, I received an order from the court dismissing my case due to the demurrer to evidence filed by the opposing party. What is a motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence? Would I still be able to re-file the case?

Sophia

Dear Sofia,

Rule 119 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that a criminal case may be dismissed on a motion for demurrer to evidence. Specifically, Section 23 thereof provides:

“After the prosecution rests its case, the accused may file a motion for demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. If granted, the court will acquit the accused without the need for the defense to present its evidence.”

In criminal cases, after the prosecution has presented all its witnesses and offered all its evidence in court, the accused may challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution and manifest that the same is insufficient to convict him or her of the crime charged through a motion for demurrer to evidence.

If the court grants the motion, the case is dismissed, resulting in the accused’s acquittal. In a case, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Marvic MVF Leonen, explained that in criminal cases, a demurrer to evidence, when granted, completely disposes the case. To proceed with another prosecution for the same offense will amount to double jeopardy, which is violative of the constitutional right of the accused. Particularly:

“The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal. Any further prosecution for the same offense would violate the accused’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.” (People of the Philippines v. Honorable Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), and Baja, GR 233437, April 26, 2021)

In JCLV Realty & Development Corporation v. Mangali, GR 236618, Aug. 27, 2020, the Supreme Court clarified through Associate Justice Mario Lopez that:

“A private complainant cannot question the Order granting the demurrer to evidence in a criminal case absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process. The interest of the offended party is limited only to the civil aspect of the case.”

Accordingly, in criminal cases, it is the State that is affected by the dismissal of the criminal action and not the private complainant. The private complainant’s interest extends only insofar as the civil aspect of the case.

In your situation, the order of the court granting the demurrer to evidence filed by the opposing party amounts to an acquittal of the accused. It is a complete disposition of the case premised on the insufficiency of evidence presented. The case cannot be refiled as its refiling will result in double jeopardy. So unless there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court or denial of due process, the grant of demurrer to evidence settles the entire criminal case.

Kindly note that a demurrer to evidence may be filed with or without leave of court. When a demurrer to evidence is filed with leave of court, meaning the party is asking the court for permission, and the court denies the demurrer to evidence, the accused may proceed with trial and add evidence in his or her defense. However, 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. (Section 23, Rule 19, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to (email protected)