Merciales v CA FACTS Criminal cases for rape with homicide in connection of the accused by the trial was done
trial was done without regard to due process of law, it is null and void
death of Maritess Merciales were filed against private respondents/accused . During
the trial, the public prosecuter filed a motion for the discharge of accused Nuada so
that he could be a state witness but the prosecution contended that it was not required
to present evidence to warrant the discharge of Nuada because he was already under
the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ But this was motion was denied for failure
of prosecutor to present evidence provided in Sec 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure ,Prosecution then filed petition for certiorari [GR. No. 113273-78,
another case] before the SC question such denial. .The private respondents then filed
a motion to set the case for hearing based on their constitutional right to speedy trial
which was granted and the hearing was set on July 29, 1994 On that date, the
prosecution filed an MR, instead of presenting of further evidence. The hearing was
postponed and set for another hearing (Aug 9) ,On that said date, prosecutor again
filed for MR and invoked its pending petition for certiorari with the SC but the
respondents objected to reset the hearing again. ,The judge called for recess to allow
the prosecution to present the NBI agent would be presented to prove the extrajudicial
confession of the accused Nuada ,But after the recess, the public prosecutor declined
to present the NBI agent and manifested that it would not anymore present further
evidence .The defense then moved that the cases be deemed submitted for decision
and asked leave of court to file a DEMURRER to evidence .The SG filed in the case
before the SC a motion for issuance of a TRO to enjoin the judge but was denied by
the SC .In the decision of RTC, It dismissed the charge of rape with homicide based on
demurrer to evidence filed by private respondents/accused; hence, the accused were
ACQUITTED and the criminal cases against them were DISMISSED for lack of
sufficient evidence to prove the guild of the accused beyond reasonable doubt .
Petitioner argued: reopening of the criminal case will not violate the accuseds right to
double jeopardy. There was judicial misconduct due to the prosecutions premature
resting and trial courts grant of the demurrer to evidence even if the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution has not been completed (violation of due process) while
in contrast with the Respondents argument: extrinsic fraud, abuse of discretion and
jurisdiction defect to warrant the annulment or Reopening of the case will violate the
accuseds right against double jeopardy .
ISSUE: Could there be an acquittal by demurrer in this case? NO. There was grave
abuse of discretion by the trial court. HELD:
PETITION GRANTED, case remanded, RTC judge order to complete presentation of
all available witness for the prosecution The trial court required the public prosecutor
to present evidence to justify Nuadas discharge as state witness but it insisted there
was no need to do so because Nuada was already under the Witness Protection
Program of the DOJ Due to this refusal to present the required evidence it prompted
the trial court to deny the motion to discharge Nuada Again, the trial court the directed
public prosecutor to present Atty. Caabay, the NBI agent who took Nuadas extrajudicial
confession but the prosecutor declared that he was resting the prosecutions case,
knowing fully well that the evidence he previously presented was not sufficient to
convict the accused. And due to that, a demurrer to evidence was filed by the accused
and was granted by the trial court It was then clear that the public prosecutor was guilty
of serious nonfeasance. It was his duty to take all steps to protect the rights of the
people in trial. He should have exhausted all available proof to establish the guilt of the
accused. Due to the nature of the testimonies of the 7 prosecution witness and and
nature of the circumstances, the trial court (motu proprio) should have called additional
witnesses to question such them to satisfy his mind to the issues of the case The
petitioner was deprived of her day in court. It is not only the State but also the offended
party that is entitled to due process in criminal cases. With regard the acquittal of the
as if there was no acquittal at all. It cannot be double jeopardy HENCE, it was very
apparent that the public prosecutor violated the due process rights of the private
complainant owing to its blatant disregard of procedural rules and the failure to present
available crucial evidence, which would tend to prove the guilt or innocence of the
accused therein. Moreover, we likewise found that the trial court was gravely remiss in
its duty to ferret out the truth and, instead, just passively watched as the public
prosecutor bungled the case. When there is a finding that there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing the criminal case by granting the
accuseds demurrer to evidence, the judgment of the TC is considered VOID. 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
such discretion. 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 reviewable only by certiorari if it was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When grave abuse of discretion
is present, an order granting a demurrer becomes null and void. The accused cannot
be in double jeopardy because the lower court acted without jurisdiction (the trial judge
in this case acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, for a judgment which is void for
lack of due process is equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdictionThe 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.
Sally Go-Bangayan filed a complaint for bigamy against Benjamin Bangayan and
Resally Delfin. On March 7, 1982, Benjamin, Jr. married Sally Go in Pasig City and they
had two children. Later, Sally learned that Benjamin, Jr. had taken Resally as his
concubine whom he subsequently married on January 5, 2001 under the false name,
Benjamin Z. Sojayco. Benjamin, Jr. fathered two children with Resally. Furthermore,
Sally discovered that on September 10, 1973, Benjamin, Jr. also married a certain
Azucena Alegre in Caloocan City. After pleading not guilty, Benjamin and Resally both
filed their motions for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. Benjamin, Jr. filed his
Demurrer to Evidence, praying that the criminal case for bigamy against him be
dismissed for failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence of his guilt.
RTC dismissed the criminal case against Benjamin, Jr. and Resally for insufficiency of
evidence. Sally Go elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA
promulgated its Decision granting her petition and ordering the remand of the case to
the RTC for further proceedings.
Issue: Whether petitioners right against double jeopardy was violated by the CA
when it reversed the December 3, 2003 RTC Order dismissing the criminal case
against them
Held: Double Jeopardy had already set-in. Even if the trial court had incorrectly
overlooked the evidence against the petitioners, it only committed an error of judgment,
and not one of jurisdiction, which could not be rectified by a petition for certiorari
because double jeopardy had already set in.
Well-established is the rule that the Court cannot review an order granting the
demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence because to do so will place the accused in double jeopardy.
An acquittal by virtue of a demurrer to evidence is not appealable because it
will place the accused in double jeopardy. However, it may be subject to review only by
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a
denial of due process.