Demurrer of Evidence

7/29/2019 Demurrer of Evidence

1/9

Rules Regarding Demurrer to theEvidence in Civil and Criminal Cases

NATUREDemurrer upon evidence is a dec laration that the party making it,

genera lly th e defend ant, ,viII not proceed, because the evid ence offered on the other sid e is not suff icient to maintain the issu,e.1 By demurring, he withdraws from the consideration of the court a ll evidenc es off,el'ed by him , admit s as true whatever fac ts the evidencead duced by the adversary t.end.s to prove, an d al l r easonab le inferencesto be drawn therefrom , and asks for a decision of the law upon suchadmitted facts.2 So jf the plaintiff ca lls severa l witnesses to provethe sa me transaction, some of whom testify unfavorably to him a ndothers in hi s favor , the defendant, by demurring to t he evidence, admits that the latter have told the tr uth , and so the court must take it,t hou gh the jury would have believed the former.3

The Code of Civil Procedure and the present Rules of Court conta in no express provision on the subject of demurrer to the evidence.This procedu r al practice obtains but tacit recognition in the provisionof section 4, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court to t he effect that :

"Sec. 4. Effect of Dism issal on Other Grounds.- Unlessotherwise ordered by t he cour t, any dismiss'al not providedfor in t h is rule , other than a dismissal for lack of jurisd ic


2/9

542 PHILIPP INE LAW JOURNALof test imony taken , the court discharged the accused for the reasonthat t he prosecution had not made out a case against him. Whi le itaffirmed t he judgment of the Court of First Instance , the SupremeCourt expressed its disapproval of the practice of dismissing thecase, on . motion of the attorney for the accused, when the fis'cal announced t hat he had no more testimony to offer, giving as reasonsthe following: "(1 ) if this court should not agree with the conclusionreached by the court be low it would be authorized to reverse the. .judgment and enter judgment convicting the accused upon the factsproved by the prosecution. and thus depriving the accu.s-ed of makinga defense below, if he had a defense, and (2) if this court, on disapproval of the j udgment below, should order a new trial the resultwou ld be t hat the prolSecution would be obliged to place the defendant on tria l twic-e, when all the evidence could have been obtained in one trial, and the defendant would have the benefit of delay and the possib le death or disappearance of witnesse.s for the prosec ution." The court then concluded that therefore, "the better practice is to requi re the defendant to make his defense, if he desires tooUer evidence in his own behalf, and not to dismis.s the case, OIlmotion, u'ntil both parties have presented all their evidence."

This doctrine was short-lived, however, for it was essentiallybased on the state of affairs engendered by General Order",. No . 58in conformity with which it was poss ible for the Government to ap


3/9

NOTES AND COMMENTS 543court that the defendant is guilty , beyond a reaso nabl e doubt, of thecrime charged in the complaint."Dismissal a Matter within Judicial Discre t ion-

The r eason for the Abaroa doctrine having been taken away bythe decision in the Kepner case, the lower court is now recognized ashaving the righ t to dismi s.s a case at the c lo se of the presentation ofthe testimony by the pro secutin g attorney, if at that time there is notsufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case aga in st t he defendant . Whether the lower cou rt grants 01 ' denies the motion to dismissrests within its discret.ion. In three cases7 the respective defendantsass igned as error the denial by the lower court of their motion todismiss presented after th e evidence for t.h e prosecution had beenclosed and before that for the defense had been begun , the motionbeing based upon lack of ev id enc e. The Supreme Court held that:"Wheth er or not the ev idence presented by the prosecuting attorney ,at the time he rests hi s case, is sufficient to convince the court thatthe defendan t is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the cr imecharg ed , r ests enti re ly within the sound discre tion and judgment ofthe lower court . The error, if any be committed by the denial of thismotion, can only be corrected on appea l by showing t hat t he evidencewas' in fact insufficient, and then the sentence of th e lower court willbe reversed for failure of evide nce .only ."Effect of Motion to Dismiss Based on Insufficiency of Evidence-


4/9

544 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNALIn th e case of P eople vs. Moro Mamacol9 the defendant moved

fo r dismissal when t he prosecution rested, without reserving the rightto present evidence in the event of denial of the motion . The trialcour t denied the motion and without allowing the defendant to present evidence, convicted him of t he cr im e of murder of which he wasaccu,5'ed . On appeal, t he Supreme Co ur t set aside the appealed decision and ordered the case remanded to the lower couxt to allow theaccused to present evidence.

So a lso, in the case of Abriol vs. Homeres (supra ), t he SupremeCo urt adopted t he same liberal attitude even when the petitioner'sright was not as clear as in the Mamacol cas'e. The petitioner togetherwith six other persons was accused of illegal possession of firearmsand ammunition. After th e prosecution had r e.s ted its case, counselfor th e defense moved to dismis s t he case on the ground of insuffic iency of the ev idence to prove the guilt of the accuse d. The trialjudge den ied said motion and without a ll owing the accused to presentev id ence in the ir defense, convicted all of them and sentenced theherein petitioner to suffer impri.sonment. The petitioner and his coaccused appea led to the Court of Appeals which however , on its ownmotion dism issed the appeal fo r failure of the appe llants to fi le theirbrief within the extension of time granted them . Abriol thereafterpresented a petition for habeas corpus contending that the sentenceente red against him in .said criminal case was null and void because ithad been r ende r ed without du e process of law . The Supreme Courtruled: "Now that the Government cannot appeal in criminal cases ifthe defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy (Sec. 2,Ru Ie U8 ), th e dismissal of the case for insufficiency of the evidence


5/9

NOT ES AND COMMENTS 545motion to dismiss has been denied, is based on sound reas'on. "Thereare criminal cases in which because of the in sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution, the presentation of defens,e's evidence , willon ly entail waste of time. Where the motion to dismiss is denied ,the re is no harm to the interests of the administration of justice toallow the def.endant to present evidence, while to bar him to pre.s'entsaid evidence, which might show his innocence, may lead to a miscarriage of justice. The substantia l rights of an accused should notbe impaired because of his counsel's anxiousness to have him promptlyacquitted."

RULES IN CIVIL CASESIn civil cases where either or both of the parties can appeal, the

Supreme Court rulings on demurrer to evidence differ from that incriminal cases and the law of the cases at times conflict with eachother. While a party may demur to the ev id enc'e the effects of suchdemurrer or motion , to dismiss is not altogether made clear by thecases.Demurr,er to Evidence in Election Contest Implied Waiver of Right toPresent Evidence-

The earliest civil case on the subject is the election contest entitled Demeterio vs. Lopez. 10 Before presenting his evidence, the protestee , Lopez, prayed for the dismi.&sal of the protest upon the groundt hat the evidence presented by the protestant did not show that thelatter had obtained a greater number of votes than he, reserving ther ight to present his evi dence if his motion was decided adversely .


6/9

546 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNALadverse to him, in which case the court that tries the case must definite ly decide it."Reason for Ruling-

I f by demurring to the evidence the protestee be held not tohave waived his right to present his evidence "in the majority ofcases, if not alway.s, the law would be frustrated and the will of theelectorate defeated, to the great deil'iment of the underlying principles of representative government, because, in case of revocationof a ruling sustaining the motion of dismissal or the demurrer onappea l, the case would have to be remanded to the court below for thecontin uation of the trial and the introduction of evidE:!l1ce by the11l"otestee, thus ca using the proceeding to contin ue during the termof the office in question, with the possible result that the defeated ,and not the elected , candidate would be discharging the office ."D>emeterio vs. Lopez Doctrine Adhered to in Other Civil Actions-

In the case of Moody, Aronson and Co. v.s. Hotel Bilbao ll theSupreme Court was faced with the question of whether the principlelaid down in the case of Demeterio vs. Lopez, (s upra ), should be carried over in other civi l actions . After the plaintiff had submitted itsevidence, the defendant moved to dismiss the action which motionwas grante d by the cour t. On appeal , the Second Division reversedthe judgment and entered another in favor of the plaintiff and againstthe defendant. The defendant presented a motion for reconsiderationpray in g that notwithstanding the motion to dismiss made in the lowercourt by the d e f e n d ~ n t and the judgment of the Supreme Court, therecord be remanded to the court below with instructions to al low the


7/9

NOTES AND COMMENTS 547avoid lengthy and expensive litigation and which will assist in thespeedy disposition of cases."

Thus , in the case of Gonzalez Castro vs. Azaola12 , the SupremeCourt expressed its disapproval of the action of t he trial court in having granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with reservation ofhis right to pre,5'ent evidence, stating that in such a situation, thelower court should not have rendered its decision, but in order toavo id any possible delay of the case and enable it to render its decision with al l the disputed questions in view, it should have required the defendant to present hi,S' evidence. Although the SupremeCourt found that t he plaintiff had made out his case, it had to remand the case to the court of origin to enable the defendant to present his evidence which it would not have done had not the defendant reserved the right to present evidence. This is the situation whichthe Supreme Court wishes to avoid in looking with disfavor upon rese rvation s by the defendant.Doctrine Dev iated fro m in Mun icipa lity of Abucay vs. AbucayPlantation CO.13 -

The next case decided by the Supreme Court bearing upon thesubject, Municipality of Abucay vs. Abucay Plantation Co., presentsa slight deviation from the princip le laid down in the foregoing cases.In that case, after the plaintiff had adduced it s evidence at the trial,counsel for the defendants moved to dismis-s the case upon the ground,


8/9

548 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNALwou ld have been duty bound to receive such evidence. The SupremeCou r t thus impli ed ly assumes that in civil cases the defendant whodemurs to the evidence may reserve his' right to present evi dence inthe eve nt of denial of his motion . This holding conflicts with theruling in Moody, Aronson and Co. vs. Hotel Bilbao to th e effect thatthe defendant who, after the plaintiff has submitted his ev id enc e makesa motion to dismiss, in effect elects to stand on the insufficiency oft he plaintiff's case and should the defendant reserve the right to prese nt evidence, th e cour t should not grant the motion bu t r equire thedefen dant to present his eviden ce.Moody , Aronson and Co. vs. Hotel Bilbao fol lowed-

The case of Arroyo vs. Azur14 affirms the doctrine laid down inMoody, Aronson and Co. vs Hotel Bilbao, (supra ), the court holdingthat when t he defendant interpos es a demurrer to the sufficiency ofthe evidence of the pla in t iff, presenting a motion fo r dismissal forthe reason t ha t ,such evid ence is insufficient to suppor t t he claim , hehas no right to reserve the presentat ion of his proof but mus t limi thimse lf to the results of said demurrer whether it be favorable oradverse. I f the motion prospers a nd dec i.8'ion supported on appeal ,the ac tion t erminates definitely, but it also term inates in the samemanner if the dec ision is r eversed an d the court of appeal finds thatthere is sufficient proof to render a deci.8'ion in favo r of th e plaintiff .Natu rally, t he effect of all these is to e liminate in these cases the so


9/9

NOTES AND COMMENTS 549least, ought to have discr etionary power to a ll ow the presentation ofevidence by the defendant."

CONCLUSIONIn criminal cases, the Supreme Co urt has laid down th e unvarying

rule that the accused who demurs to the evid ence, with or without r eserva tion of his right to present hi s evidence, is not precluded frompresenting such ev idence in case the motion to dismiss is denied .The difficulty arises' in civi l cases where no such clear-cut r ul e hasbeen laid down . The so lution to the prob lem seems to be that pointedout in the case of Cotaoco vs . Dinglasan, (supra ), I f the trial courtden ies the motion to dismiss no unnecessary litigati on would re.sultfro m allowin g t he party who submitted the motion to present his ev idence. However, if the court grants t he motion, t he rulings in themajority of the cases would apply . I f the appellate court should rever,s'e the judgment of t he lower cou r t, t he fo rm er woul d not be obliged to pe mand the case to t he court of origin to a llow receipt ofthe evidence of the party who presented the motion. I f thi s procedurewere consistently fo llowed, much of the present confusion would beeli minated.

JOSE DESIDERIO, JR. FELICIANA P. DINOSO

Documents

Demurrer of Evidence