RECENT JURISPRUDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

ANAMER SALAZAR v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and J.Y. BROTHERS

MARKETING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 151931, 23 September 2003, Second Division (Callejo Sr., J.)
If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only granting the demurrer to
evidence of the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability, the judgment on
the civil aspect of the case would be a nullity as it violates the constitutional right to due
process.
In 1997, petitioner Anmer Salazar and Nena Jaucian Timario were charged with estafa before the
Legazpi City Regional Trial Court.
The estafa case allegedly stemmed from the payment of a check worth P214,000 to private
respondent J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation (JYBMC) through Jerson Yao for the purchase of
300 bags of rice. The check was dishonored by drawee Prudential Bank as it is drawn against a
closed account. Salazar replaced said check with a new one, this time drawn against Solid Bank. It is
again dishonored for being drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD).
The DAUD means that the account to which the check was drawn had sufficient funds.
However, the fund cannot be used because it was collected against a deposited check which is yet to
be cleared.
Trial ensued. After the prosecution presented its evidence, Salazar filed a demurrer to evidence
with leave of court, which the trial court granted.
In 2002, the trial court rendered judgment acquitting Salazar, but ordered her to remit to
JYBMC P214,000. The trial court ruled that the evidence of the prosecution failed to establish the
existence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt between the petitioner and the issuer of the check,
Timario. As a mere endorser of the check, Salazar's breach of warranty was a good one and did not
amount to estafa under Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Timario remained at large.
As a result, Salazar filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect of the decision with a
plea to be allowed to present evidence. The trial court denied the motion.
Because of the denial of the motion, she filed petition for review on certiorari before the
Supreme Court alleging she was denied due process as the trial court did not give her the
opportunity to adduce evidence to controvert her civil liability.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Salazar was denied due process.

U.S.T. Law Review, Volume XLVIII, January December 2004

RECENT JURISPRUDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

HELD:
Salazar should have been given by the trial court the chance to present her evidence as regards
the civil aspect of the case.
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court explained the demurrer to evidence
partakes of a motion to dismiss the case for the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. In a case where the accused files a demurrer to evidence without leave of court,
thereby waives his right to present evidence and submits the case for decision on the basis of the
prosecution's evidence he has the right to adduce evidence not only on the criminal aspect, but also
on the civil aspect of the case of the demurrer is denied by the court.
In addition, the Court said if the demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court,
the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court also
declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only granting the demurrer to evidence
of the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability, the judgment on the civil aspect of
the case would be a nullity as it violates the constitutional right to due process.
The Supreme Court explained that the trial court erred in rendering judgment on the civil aspect
of the case and ordering the petitioner to pay for her purchases from the private complainant even
before the petitioner could adduce evidence thereon is patently a denial of her right to due process.
Citing Aante vs Savelana, Jr., the Court stressed that Section 14 (1) and (2) of Article III of the
1987 Constitution which are elementary and deeply imbedded in our own criminal justice system are
mandatory and indispensable. The principles find universal acceptance and are tersely expressed in
the oft-quoted statement that procedural due process cannot possibly be met without a "law which
hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial".

U.S.T. Law Review, Volume XLVIII, January December 2004