Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > October 1986 Decisions > G.R. No. L-67228 October 9, 1986 - SIMPLICIO CRUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-67228. October 9, 1986.]

SIMPLICIO CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HONORABLE ERNESTO S. TENGCO, Presiding Judge, Branch VI, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; PROPER REMEDY IN ORDER TO HAVE THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF TRIAL COURT REVIEWED BY A SUPERIOR COURT. — In the case of Joseph v. Villaluz, G.R. Nos. L-46329-30, April 10, 1979, 89 SCRA 324, it was held that this Court will not annul an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss in a criminal case. Appeal is the proper remedy of the petitioners in order to have the findings of fact reviewed by a superior court. This is a reiteration of an earlier ruling in People v. Romero, 22 Phil. 565, where the Court stressed that the question of whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convince the court that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, rests entirely within the sound judgment of the trial court. The error, if any is committed by the denial of the demurrer to evidence, can only be corrected by appeal.

2. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; DOES NOT LIE TO CHALLENGE THE TRIAL COURT’S INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. — The Court held in People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51635, December 14, 1982, 119 SCRA 162, that it has been the long settled rule that certiorari does not lie to challenge the trial court’s interlocutory order denying the accused’s motion to dismiss. The appellate courts will not review in such special civil action the prosecution’s evidence and decide in advance that such evidence has or has not yet established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The orderly procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court is for the accused to present his evidence after which the trial court, on its own assessment of the evidence submitted by both the prosecution and the defense, will then properly render its judgment of acquittal or conviction. If the verdict is one of acquittal, the case ends there. But if it is one of conviction, then appeal is the proper recourse.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, J.:


This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the order of respondent Judge Ernesto S. Tengco of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch VI, denying the demurrer to evidence filed by herein petitioner Simplicio Cruz in Criminal Case No. 83-16152, entitled People v. Simplicio Cruz y Lazaro.

Petitioner Simplicio Cruz stands charged in the court a quo with the crime of corruption of minors. The information dated March 18, 1983 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned accuses SIMPLICIO CRUZ y LAZARO alias SHIRLEY of a violation of Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 92, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That in or about and during the month of February 1983 and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and habitually, with abuse of authority or confidence, promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of TOINETTE MARIE RONQUILLO, a minor, 15 years of age, to satisfy the lust of another." 1

Upon petitioner’s plea of not guilty, trials were held on July 6 and 8, 1983 and January 13, 1984, during which the prosecution presented three [3] witnesses and offered documentary evidence. The three witnesses who testified for the prosecution were police officers of the Western Police District. They testified on the complaint of Toinette Marie Ronquillo against petitioner Cruz for illegal detention and physical injuries; the raid on petitioner’s residence which revealed photographs of nude male and female models, including those of the complainant; the arrest and investigation of petitioner who did not give a written statement; the complainant’s affidavits taken by the police; and the eventual filing of the complaint for corruption of minors with the City Fiscal’s office.cralawnad

The documentary evidence consisted of the two affidavits executed by the complainant on March 16 and 17, 1983, respectively; 2 photos of a young woman, said to be complainant Toinette Marie Ronquillo, in different obscene poses; 3 receipt dated March 17, 1983 of the articles seized from petitioner’s residence in the course of the raid; 4 the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report dated March 17, 1983 prepared by the arresting officer; 5 and the police information report, also dated March 17, 1983. 6

Because complainant Toinette Marie Ronquillo never appeared at any stage of the proceedings nor testified in court despite the notices sent to her, the prosecution was compelled to rest its case.

On April 2, 1984, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence which respondent Judge Tengco denied in his order of April 16, 1984 "considering the grounds alleged in the motion to dismiss [demurrer to evidence] not having been well-taken." 7

Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari [Rule 65] claiming that the denial of his demurrer to evidence is not in accordance with law and the evidence. 8

On motion of defense counsel, respondent court suspended the reception of the defense’s evidence pending final resolution of the instant petition.chanrobles law library : red

Under the Revised Rules of Court of 1964, the applicable law in the present case, there is no specific rule in criminal procedure which is directly in point. However, the courts have in some exceptional instances applied the rule in civil procedure embodied in Rule 35, section 1 of the Rules which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. Effect of judgment on demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. However, if the motion is granted and the order of dismissal if reversed on appeal, the movant loses his right to present evidence in his behalf."cralaw virtua1aw library

The aforesaid rule simply means that after the plaintiff has rested his case, the defendant may move for the dismissal of the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. In the event his motion is denied in the first instance, he may choose to offer evidence. On the other hand, if his motion is granted and the order of dismissal is reversed on appeal, judgment is rendered in favor of the adverse party because the movant loses his right to present evidence. However, in criminal cases where the motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is granted, the dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal from which there is no appeal. 9

Under the Rule 119, section 15 of the present Rules on Criminal Procedure which took effect on January 1, 1985, the accused is explicitly granted the right to move for a demurrer to evidence. However, once he avails himself of that prerogative, he is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment. Thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 15. Demurrer to evidence. — When after the prosecution has rested its case, the accused files a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, he waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution."cralaw virtua1aw library

It must be made clear, however, that the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure has no applicability to the case at bar as the challenged order of Judge Tengco was issued on April 16, 1984, or before the new rules became effective.

The question now arises: Can the accused in a criminal case assail the denial of the demurrer to evidence in a special civil action for certiorari?

In the case of Joseph v. Villaluz, G.R. Nos. L-46329-30, April 10, 1979, 89 SCRA 324, it was held that this Court will not annul an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss in a criminal case. Appeal is the proper remedy of the petitioners in order to have the findings of fact reviewed by a superior court. 10 This is a reiteration of an earlier ruling in People v. Romero, 22 Phil. 565, where the Court stressed that the question of whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convince the court that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, rests entirely within the sound judgment of the trial court. The error, if any is committed by the denial of the demurrer to evidence, can only be corrected by appeal.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Similarly, the Court held in People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51635, December 14, 1982, 119 SCRA 162, that it has been the long settled rule that certiorari does not lie to challenge the trial court’s interlocutory order denying the accused’s motion to dismiss. The appellate courts will not review in such special civil action the prosecution’s evidence and decide in advance that such evidence has or has not yet established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The orderly procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court is for the accused to present his evidence after which the trial court, on its own assessment of the evidence submitted by both the prosecution and the defense, will then properly render its judgment of acquittal or conviction. If the verdict is one of acquittal, the case ends there. But if it is one of conviction, then appeal is the proper recourse.

Thus, it cannot be said that respondent Judge Tengco, in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the criminal action against him for insufficiency of evidence, gravely abused his discretion. His denial order finds ample support in our jurisprudence. Verily, petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to the relief prayed for. 11

ACCORDINGLY, the present petition for certiorari is dismissed. The challenged order of respondent Judge Ernesto S. Tengco of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch VI, dated April 16, 1984 in Criminal Case No. 83-16152 entitled People v. Simplicio Cruz y Lazaro, denying the demurrer to evidence [motion to dismiss] by petitioner, is sustained. Said criminal case is ordered remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Petitioner is given the option to either present his evidence or to submit the case for decision based solely on the prosecution’s evidence.

This decision is immediately executory upon its promulgation.

SO ORDERED.

Feria (Chairman), Actg. C.J., Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr. and Paras, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Annex B, Petition.

2. Exhibits A and B.

3. Exhibits C, C-1 to C-18.

4. Annex D.

5. Exhibit E.

6. Exhibit F.

7. Annex A, Petition.

8. p. 15, Rollo.

9. People v. City Court of Silay, G.R. No. L-43790, Dec. 9, 1976, 74 SCRA 247.

10. See also Manalo v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-33850, January 22, 1976, 69 SCRA 80.

11. Rule 65, section 8, Rules of Court.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





October-1986 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-56132 October 2, 1986 - VICENTE LUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-69668 October 2, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HUMBERTO TEMPONGKO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47851 October 3, 1986 - JUAN F. NAKPIL & SONS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-65800 October 3, 1986 - PARTENZA LUCERNA VDA. DE TUPAS v. BRANCH XLII, RTC OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

  • G.R. No. 74425 October 7, 1986 - BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORP. v. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. L-57586 October 8, 1986 - AQUILINO RIVERA v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. L-26284 October 9, 1986 - TOMAS CALASANZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-29688 October 9, 1986 - FELICIDAD AGUILAR v. ERLINDA Q. CHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67228 October 9, 1986 - SIMPLICIO CRUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-69769 October 9, 1986 - FFW-ARIS PHILIPPINES CHAPTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-48711 October 10, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES ARHIS

  • G.R. No. L-57552 October 10, 1986 - LUISA F. MCLAUGHLIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 70594 October 10, 1986 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 70684 October 10, 1986 - CITY OF CEBU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.C. No. R-227-RTJ October 13, 1986 - GREGORIO R. ABAD v. ILDEFONSO BLEZA

  • G.R. No. L-49810 October 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MANALO

  • G.R. No. L-70513 October 13, 1986 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72473 October 13, 1986 - PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75349 October 13, 1986 - ROSALINA BUAN, ET AL. v. GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-54140 October 14, 1986 - FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE ALEJANDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70998 October 14, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO C. ALE

  • G.R. No. 72588 October 15, 1986 - JORGE W. JOSE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73425 October 15, 1986 - MARGARITA S. MAYORES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49911 October 16, 1986 - CARIDAD FRANCO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56180 October 16, 1986 - ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986 - EDGARDO A. GAANAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70546 October 16, 1986 - FILIPRO, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66272 October 17, 1986 - SEE BAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74586 October 17, 1986 - SERVICE SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED v. SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66947 October 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAUREANO L. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 76180 October 24, 1986 - SATURNINO V. BERMUDEZ

  • A.M. No. R-400-P October 27, 1986 - MIGUEL P. PADERANGA, ET AL. v. RODRIGUEZ ORIMACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43181 October 27, 1986 - JOSEPH LU v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52017 October 27, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO GAPASIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58927 October 27, 1986 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65173 October 27, 1986 - HENRY CLYDE ABBOTT, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68544 October 27, 1986 - LORENZO C. DY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73611 October 27, 1986 - MARIA PEÑALES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40003 October 28, 1986 - SHIRLEY YAP, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66671 October 28, 1986 - JOSEFINA SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68932 October 28, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO CORONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70615 October 28, 1986 - VIRGILIO CALLANTA v. CARNATION PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71359 October 28, 1986 - LILIBETH SUBAYNO v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73463 October 28, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO C. GAMBOA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73669 October 28, 1986 - FEDERICO MISSION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52478 October 30, 1986 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.