TOPIC: DEMURRER
scrap of paper.
NENITA GONZALES, et at. Vs. MARIANO
BUGAAY, et al.
G.R. No. 213551 | January 12, 2015 | Resolution
Digested By: Dolar, Theodore Adriel S.
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, a notice of
hearing for the demurrer is not required, only the
filing of an opposition thereto.
FACTS:
 This case sprung from the infamous
“Parañaque Shootout” that took the lives
of complainant Lilian De Vera’s husband
and daughter.
 Lilian filed a complaint for multiple
murder against Respondents who were
members of the Special Action Force
(SAF) and Highway Patrol Group (HPG)
that took part in the operation.
 The Dept. of Justice filed 2 sets of
Information against for the murder of
Lilian’s husband and daughter against
Respondents before the RTC of
Parañaque.
 The RTC dismissed the case against
the HPG members, and the MR was
likewise denied.
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA, seeking to annul the
dismissal of the case.
 The CA granted the same and ordered
the issuance of warrants of arrest
against the Respondents who were
members of the HPG.
 Meanwhile, the SAF members were
arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After
the Prosecution rested its case, the SAF
members filed a Motion for Leave to File
Demurrer to Evidence, which was
granted by the RTC, acquitting the SAF
Members.
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA, alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC judge
for granting the demurrer which was
defective for lack of notice of hearing.
 Petitioner contends that a demurrer
since the demurrer had no notice of
hearing, it must be deemed a mere
 The CA dismissed the petition, finding
no grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the RTC. The CA ruled that Rule 15
was inapplicable as the instant case is a
criminal case which is governed by Sec.
23, Rule 119. A hearing is not required
before the resolution of a demurrer
because based on the rules, the
prosecution may file its opposition
thereto. If the demurrer is granted, the
opposition may again file its opposition
to the resolution. Simply put, under Sec.
23, Rule 119, the conduct of a hearing is
not required, only the filing of an
opposition.
 The Petitioner no assails the ruling of
the CA via petition for review under Rule
45.
ISSUE: Whether the demurrer was defective for
lack of notice of hearing.
HELD:
NO. The CA was correct in dismissing
the petition. The rationale for a notice of hearing
in a motion is to enable the court to determine
whether the adverse party agrees or objects
thereto. In the case at bar, Petitioner's
opposition enabled the court to determine its
objections. Petitioner's opposition was duly
heard by the court. Thus, the same purpose for
requiring the notice of hearing is fulfilled by the
filing of an opposition.
Also, the Petitioner should have acted
on the denial of its opposition right at the first
instance. Instead, the Petitioner waited until the
final judgment of the RTC, which ruled on the
acquittal of Respondent SAP members. This is
clearly a fatal omission on the part of the
Petitioner. This Court is precluded from
determining the innocence or guilt of the
accused without transgressing the Constitutional
prohibition not to put any person twice in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
PETITION IS DENIED.