G.R. No. 186001 October 2, 2009 ANTONIO CABADOR, Petitioner, People of The Philippines, Respondent. Facts
G.R. No. 186001 October 2, 2009 ANTONIO CABADOR, Petitioner, People of The Philippines, Respondent. Facts
ANTONIO CABADOR, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
The public prosecutor accused petitioner Antonio Cabador of murdering, in conspiracy with others, Atty. Jun
N. Valerio. After presenting only five witnesses over five years of intermittent trial, the RTC declared at an
end the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and required the prosecution to make a written or formal offer
of its documentary evidence within 15 days from notice.
Petitioner Cabador filed a motion to dismiss the case, complaining of a turtle-paced proceeding in the case
since his arrest and detention in 2001 and invoking his right to a speedy trial. Further, he claimed that in the
circumstances, the trial court could not consider any evidence against him that had not been formally offered.
He also pointed out that the prosecution witnesses did not have knowledge of his alleged part in the crime
charged.
Unknown to petitioner Cabador, however, four days earlier or on July 28, 2006 the prosecution asked the RTC
for another extension of the period for its formal offer, which offer it eventually made on August 1, 2006, the
day Cabador filed his motion to dismiss.
The RTC issued an Order treating petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence. And,
since he filed his motion without leave of court, the RTC declared him to have waived his right to present
evidence in his defense. Cabador filed a motion for reconsideration of this Order but the RTC denied. Cabador
questioned the RTC’s actions before the CA but the latter denied his petition and affirmed the lower court’s
actions. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss before the trial court was in fact a demurrer to evidence
filed without leave of court, with the result that he effectively waived his right to present evidence in his
defense and submitted the case for decision insofar as he was concerned.
HELD:
No. Petitioner did not file a demurrer to evidence but a motion to dismiss.
In criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the accused’s right to speedy
trial. This denial is characterized by unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delays without fault of the
accused, or by unjustified postponements that unreasonably prolonged the trial. This was the main thrust of
Cabador’s motion to dismiss and he had the right to bring this up for a ruling by the trial court.
To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must
consider (1) the allegations in it made in good faith; (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed; and (3)
the primary objective of the party filing it.
The pertinent portions of petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss did not even bother to do what is so
fundamental in any demurrer. He did not state what evidence the prosecution had presented against him
to show in what respects such evidence failed to meet the elements of the crime charged. His so-called
"demurrer" did not touch on any particular testimony of even one witness. He cited no documentary exhibit.
Indeed, he could not because, he did not know that the prosecution finally made its formal offer of exhibits on
the same date he filed his motion to dismiss.
Besides, a demurrer to evidence assumes that the prosecution has already rested its case. Section 23, Rule 119
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads:
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 the evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. (Emphasis supplied)
Here, after the prosecution filed its formal offer of exhibits on August 1, 2006, the same day Cabador filed his
motion to dismiss, the trial court still needed to give him an opportunity to object to the admission of those
exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal offer. And only after such a ruling could the prosecution be
deemed to have rested its case. Since Cabador filed his motion to dismiss before he could object to the
prosecution’s formal offer, before the trial court could act on the offer, and before the prosecution could rest its
case, it could not be said that he had intended his motion to dismiss to serve as a demurrer to evidence.