Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • G.R. No. 186001 October 2, 2009 ANTONIO CABADOR, Petitioner, People of The Philippines, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Joshua John Espiritu
    56 views2 pages
    Petitioner Antonio Cabador filed a motion to dismiss a murder case against him, arguing denial of his right to a speedy trial due to five years of intermittent proceedings with only five prosecution witnesses. The trial court treated this as a demurrer to evidence, waiving Cabador's right to present a defense. The Supreme Court ruled that Cabador's motion was not a demurrer but a valid motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. A demurrer assumes the prosecution rested its case, which had not happened, as exhibits were still pending admission. Cabador's motion properly asserted his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CrimPro.Cabador-vs.-People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner Antonio Cabador filed a motion to dismiss a murder case against him, arguing denial of his right to a speedy trial due to five years of intermittent proceedings with only five prosecution witnesses. The trial court treated this as a demurrer to evidence, waiving Cabador's right to present a defense. The Supreme Court ruled that Cabador's motion was not a demurrer but a valid motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. A demurrer assumes the prosecution rested its case, which had not happened, as exhibits were still pending admission. Cabador's motion properly asserted his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 186001 October 2, 2009 ANTONIO CABADOR, Petitioner, People of The Philippines, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Joshua John Espiritu
    Petitioner Antonio Cabador filed a motion to dismiss a murder case against him, arguing denial of his right to a speedy trial due to five years of intermittent proceedings with only five prosecution witnesses. The trial court treated this as a demurrer to evidence, waiving Cabador's right to present a defense. The Supreme Court ruled that Cabador's motion was not a demurrer but a valid motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. A demurrer assumes the prosecution rested its case, which had not happened, as exhibits were still pending admission. Cabador's motion properly asserted his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    186001               October 2, 2009

    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.

    You might also like