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.

CASE DIGESTS ON DEMURRER IN CRIMINAL

G.R. No. 191015, August 06, 2014, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PETITIONER, VS. JOSE C. GO, AIDA C.
DELA ROSA, AND FELECITAS D. NECOMEDES,** RESPONDENTS

The power of courts to grant demurrer in

criminal cases should be exercised with great
caution, because not only the rights of the
accused but those of the offended party and the
public interest as well are involved.

ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the

absence of a grave abuse of such discretion.[43] As
to effect, the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to
an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would
place the accused in double jeopardy. The order is

Demurrer to the evidence is an objection by one of the

reviewable only by certiorari if it was issued with grave

parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law,

jurisdiction. When grave abuse of discretion is present,

whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the

an order granting a demurrer becomes null and void.

issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of

the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in
passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a
demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there
is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient
evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is
such evidence in character, weight or amount as will
legally justify the judicial or official action demanded
according to the circumstances. To be considered
sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the
commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of
participation therein by the accused. Thus, when the
accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate
whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to
warrant the conviction of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left
to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its

As a general rule, an order granting the accuseds

demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal. There are
certain exceptions, however, as when the grant thereof
would not violate the constitutional proscription on
double jeopardy. For instance, this Court ruled that when
there is a finding that there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing a
criminal case by granting the accuseds demurrer to
evidence, its judgment is considered void, as this Court
ruled in People v. Laguio, Jr.:
By this time, it is settled that the appellate court may
review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an
accuseds demurrer to evidence. This may be done via
the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being
considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set
aside by an appellate court in an original special civil

action via certiorari, the right of the accused against

despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The

double jeopardy is not violated.

party questioning the acquittal of an accused should be

able to clearly establish that the trial court blatantly

xxx
As a general rule, an order granting the accuseds

abused its discretion such that it was deprived of its

authority to dispense justice.

demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal. There are

In the exercise of the Courts superintending control

certain exceptions, however, as when the grant thereof

over inferior courts, we are to be guided by all the

would not violate the constitutional proscription on

circumstances of each particular case as the ends of

double jeopardy. For instance, this Court ruled that when

justice may require. So it is that the writ will be granted

there is a finding that there was grave abuse of

where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do

discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing a

substantial justice.

criminal case by granting the accuseds demurrer to

evidence, its judgment is considered void, as this Court

Guided by the foregoing pronouncements, the Court

ruled in People v. Laguio, Jr.:

declares that the CA grossly erred in affirming the trial

courts July 2, 2007 Order granting the respondents

By this time, it is settled that the appellate court may

demurrer, which Order was patently null and void for

review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an

having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and

accuseds demurrer to evidence. This may be done via

manifest irregularity, thus causing substantial injury to

the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based

the banking industry and public interest. The Court finds

on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to

that the prosecution has presented competent evidence

lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being to sustain the indictment for the crime of estafa through
considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
falsification of commercial documents, and that
Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set

respondents appear to be the perpetrators thereof. In

aside by an appellate court in an original special civil

evaluating the evidence, the trial court effectively failed

action via certiorari, the right of the accused against

and/or refused to weigh the prosecutions evidence

double jeopardy is not violated.

against the respondents, which it was duty-bound to do

In the instant case, having affirmed the CA finding grave

abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court when it
granted the accuseds demurrer to evidence, we deem
its consequent order of acquittal void.
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as that capricious
or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
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

as a trier of facts; considering that the case involved

hundreds of millions of pesos of OCBC depositors
money not to mention that the banking industry is
impressed with public interest, the trial court should have
conducted itself with circumspection and engaged in
intelligent reflection in resolving the issues.
After adducing the evidence of the prosecution in
support of its case, the Supreme Court noted that the
case against the accuse may exist, and ruled that the
granting of the demurrer to evidence by the RT was
improper:

Finally, it must be borne in mind that [t]he granting of a

demurrer to evidence should x x x be exercised with
caution, taking into consideration not only the rights of
the accused, but also the right of the private offended
party to be vindicated of the wrongdoing done against
him, for if it is granted, the accused is acquitted and the
private complainant is generally left with no more
remedy. In such instances, although the decision of the
court may be wrong, the accused can invoke his right
against double jeopardy. Thus, judges are reminded to
be more diligent and circumspect in the performance of
their duties as members of the Bench x x x.