asfasfasfasfRULE 119

1. Salvanera vs. People

FACTS:
Rimberto Salvanera, Feliciano Abutin and Domingo Tampelix were charged with conspiracy of
murder; Salvanera as the mastermind. The prosecution moved for the discharge of Abutin and
Tampelix f
ce, the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA committed serious error when it ruled that the “substantial corroboration”
requirement under Sec. 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court was satisfied by the prosecution.
HELD:
No. The CA did not commit an error in its judgment. In the discharge of an accused, in order
that he
a.) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused;
b.) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed;
required by the Rules does not have to consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on
by the proposed state witness. The rule on conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fell
Manuel A. Montero confessed his participation in the killing of Ruby Rose Barrameda naming
Manuel J. Jimenez and several others as co-conspirators. His statements detailed where the
alleged steel casing containing the body of Ruby Rose was dumped, led to the recovery of a
cadaver near the place which he pointed. Montero filed a motion for discharge as a state witness
for the prosecution, to which Jimenez opposed. The motion to discharge was granted by Judge
Zaldy B. Docena stating that the prosecution had presented clear, satisfactory and convincing
evidence showing compliance with the requisites of granting the said motion. Jimenez opposed
Ju
ent as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner. To resolve a motion to
discharge under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it only require
that that the testimony of the accused sought to be discharged be substantially corroborated in its
material points not on all points. A trial judge cannot be expected or required, at the start of the
trial, to inform himself with absolute certainty of everything that may develop in the course of
the trial with respect to the guilty participation of the accused. It is still
the trial court that determines whether the prosecution’s preliminary assessment of
the accused-witness’ qualifications to be a state witness satisfies the procedural
norms. This relationship is in reality a symbiotic one as the trial court, by the very nature of its
role in the administration of justice, largely exercises its prerogative based on the prosecutor’s
findings and evaluation.

4. People vs. DeGrano

Facts: hile their co-accused Leonides, Leonardo, and Domingo remained at-large. Thereafter,
respondents filed a motion for bail contending that the prosecution’s evidence was not strong.
RTC
found the accused guilty of the offenses charged. In 2004 an order was issued that modified the
previous decision, from murder the case was downgraded to homicide. However, Joven,
Armando, and Domingo was not present during promulgation. They maintained that while they
not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence
or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the
promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear
by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and
cannot be waived. When the Decision dated April 25, 2002 was promulgated, only Estanislao
Lacaba was present. Subsequently thereafter, without surrendering and explaining the reasons for
their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined Estanislao in their Joint Motion for
Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause the arrest of
the respondents who were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion. The RTC clearly
exc
Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of

of criminal charges against her.

Trial ensued and after the presentation ansdasdasdasdasCourt (RTC) of Manila, does not have
jurisdiction over the case, as the crime charged (Violation of Section 46 of RA 6938) does not
carry with it a sanction for which she can be held criminally liable.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not the dismissal of theal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has
no precise legal definitionbut it has been generally understood to charge against the accused on
demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal, hence, final and unappealable.

Held:

No. The dismiss

f demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double
jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there. al concept of a joint venture is
of common law origin. It has no precise legal definitionbut it has been generally understood to

In this case, however, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case not for
insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Notably, the RTC
did not decide the case on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of Asistio’s guilt or innocence
based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution. This being the case, the RTC Order of
dismissal does not operate as an acquittal, hence, may still be subject to ordinary appeal under
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

6. Cabador vs. People

FACTS :
Public prosecutor accused Cabador before the RTC QC of murdering, in conspiracy with others,
Atty. Valerio. - After presenting only 5 witnesses over 5 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. But the
public prosecutor asked for 3 extensions of time. The prosecution still failed to make the required
written offer. - Cabador filed a motion to dismiss, invoking his right to speedy trial. o Unknown
to him, the prosecution asked the RTC for another extension of the period for its final offer,
which offer it made on the day Cabador filed his motion to dismiss. - RTC issued an Order
treating the motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence. o Since Cabador filed his motion
without leave of court, the RTC declared him to have waived his right to present evidence in his
defense.
Issue: W/N Cabador’s motion to dismiss was a demurrer to evidence with the result that he
effectively waived his right to present evidence in his defense and submitted the case for
decision –
Held:
NO - The RTC and CA treated the motion as a demurrer because of a few observations he made
regarding the inadequacy of the evidence against him. - However, Cabador did not bother to do
what is so fundamental in any demurrer. o He did not state what evidence the prosecution had
against him to show in what respects such evidence failed to meet the elements of the crime
charged. o The demurrer did not touch on any particular testimony of even witness. o He cited no
documentary exhibit – he could not because he did not know that the prosecution finally made its
formal offer on the same gave he filed his motion to dismiss. - 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. He cannot be declared to have
waived his right to present evidence in his defense Petition granted. RTC order nullified.

7. People vs. Tan

Facts:
Two separate information were filed against respondent Tan for violation of the Revised
Securities Act, when he failed to file with SEC the amount of all BWRC (Best World Resources
Corporation) shares of which he is the beneficial owner within 10 days after he became such
beneficial owner.
During the trial, petitioner made its formal offer of evidence. RTC admitted the pieces of
evidence, but denied admission of all other exhibits. Tan filed Motion for Leave to File
Demurrer to Evidence. Petitioner filed its Opposition to which Tan filed a Reply. In the end,
RTC issued an order granting Tan’s Demurrer to Evidence.

Petitioner filed a petition before the CA assailing the order of RTC which granted Tan’s motion.
CA denied, ruling that the dismissal of a criminal action by the grant of a Demurrer to Evidence
is one on the merits and operates as an acquittal, for which reason, the prosecution cannot appeal
therefrom as it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

Hence, the appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in granting Tan’s Demurrer to Evidence.

Held:
No.

The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is “filed after the prosecution
had rested its case,” and when the same is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt,
resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.”
Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for
to do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the
case ends there.

The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which is not present in this case.
RTC did not violate petitioner’s right to due process as the petitioner was given more than ample
opportunity to present its case which led to grant of Tan’s demurrer. RTC never prevented
petitioner from presenting its case. In fact, one of the main reasons for the RTCs decision to
grant the demurrer was the absence of evidence to prove the classes of shares that the Best World
Resources Corporation stocks were divided into, whether there are preferred shares as well as
common shares, or even which type of shares respondent had acquired,

Petitioner argues that the RTC displayed resolute bias when it chose to grant respondents
demurrer to evidence notwithstanding that it had filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the
Resolution of Tan’s Demurrer to Evidence and The Prosecution’s Opposition Thereto. Petitioner
contends that instead of acting on the motion, the RTC peremptorily granted Tan’s demurrer to
evidence which prevented petitioner from its intention to file a petition to question the orders.
While it would have been ideal for the RTC to hold in abeyance the resolution of the demurrer to
evidence, nowhere in the rules, however, is it mandated to do so. Furthermore, even if this Court
were to consider the same as an error on the part of the RTC, the same would merely constitute
an error of procedure or of judgment and not an error of jurisdiction as persistently argued by
petitioner.

As such RTC did not abuse its discretion in the manner it conducted the proceedings of the trial,
as well as its grant of respondent’s demurrer to evidence.
8. Imperial vs. Joson
9. People vs. Sandiganbayan n/a
10. Bangayan Jr. vs. Bangayan
Facts:
Sally Go-Bangayan filed a complaint for bigamy against Benjamin Bangayan and Resally
Delfin. Later, Sally learned that Benjamin, Jr. had taken Resally as his concubine whom he
subsequently married under the false name, “Benjamin Z. Sojayco.” 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 al concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise
legal definitionbut it has been generally understood toa 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. His
plea was anchored on two main arguments: (1) he was not legally married to Sally Go because of
the existence of his prior marriage to Azucena; and (2) the prosecution was unable to show that
he and the “Benjamin Z. Sojayco Jr.,” who married Resally, were one and the same person.
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. The CA held that the following pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution
were sufficient to deny the demurrer to evidence: (1) the existence of three marriages of
Benjamin, Jr. to Azucena, Sally Go and Resally; (2) the letters and love notes from Resally to
Benjamin, Jr.; (3) the admission of Benjamin, Jr. as regards his marriage to Sally Go and
Azucena; and (4) Benjamin, Jr.’s admission that he and Resally were in some kind of a
relationship. CA further stated that Benjamin, Jr. was mistaken in claiming that he could not be
guilty of bigamy because his marriage to Sally Go was null and void in light of the fact that he
was already married to Azucena. A judicial declaration of nullity was required in order for him
to be able to use the nullity of his marriage as a defense in a bigamy charge.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners’ right against double jeopardy was violated by the CA when it
reversed the RTC Order dismissing the criminal case against them.
Held:
Yes, 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
al concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definitionbut it has
been generally understood toal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no
precise legal definitionbut it has been generally understood to

dered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.