BBB,* 

PETITIONER, VS. AMY B. CANTILLA, RESPONDENT.

Amy B. Cantilla (respondent) was charged with Child Abuse under RA 7610. During arraignment, accused
pleaded not guilty for committing child abuse upon the child of BBB, who is a 3 year old minor, by hitting
her with the use of slippers and her hand, feeding her only twice a day, spanking her right face and-
pinching both her arms.

Petitioner, who was usually on international flight as a flight attendant for almost a week in Cathay Pacific
Airlines, hired the services of respondent as petitioner’s househelper and Torres as caretaker of AAA who
was 3 years old. One day, Petitioner immediately terminated the services of Torress and Cantilla upon
the call of Espiritu, petitioner’s trusted friend, whose yaya witnessed the physical harm inflicted on AAA
by respondent.

On January 28, 2014, the prosecution presented AAA as witness. She testified on the circumstances that gave
rise to the charge of Child Abuse against the respondent. Thereafter, the prosecution formally offered its
documentary evidence on November 11, 2014.

On April 13, 2015, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence with Manifestation. According to respondent, the
non-presentation of the supposed eyewitness, in this case “Maritoni Espiritu,” is fatal since her testimony
would give substance to the allegations stated in the Information. And further argued that the testimony of
AAA, who was already 12 years old when she testified of the incident that happened to her when she was 3
years old, was tainted with doubt. Respondent questioned the delay of the petitioner in filing a case against
respondent in year 2010, while the alleged incident took place in 2006.

RTC granted respondent's demurrer to evidence there being no sufficient evidence to support a conviction.

RTC denied both motions, for reconsideration and subsequently the inhibition of the presiding judge.

When petitioner elevated the case to CA via a Petition for Certiorari, CA resolved to dismiss the petition
for certiorari due to its findings that it was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period, that the verification
and certification against forum shopping did not contain the competent evidence of identity of the
petitioners, and that the People of the Philippines was not impleaded.

CA subsequently denied petitioner’s motion to reinstate petition arguing that she duly filed a motion for
additional time to file petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in granting Criminal Case for having been filed out of time

HELD: NO.

The general rule that the grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal and an acquitted defendant is
entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal is subject to the rule on
double jeopardy which is subject to the exercise of judicial review by way of the extraordinary writ
of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The provisions on reglementary period must be
applied strictly, as they are indispensable to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the
orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. This is clearly found in Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, as amended by Administrative Matter No. 07-7-12-SC which states that the petition for certiorari must
be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment or resolution.

In this case, the Petition For Certiorari was dismissed on grounds that it was filed beyond the 60-day
reglementary period. Although, petitioner admits the same, petitioner attempts to justify the failure to file
the Petition on time by alleging that the failure was due to circumstances of her (petitioner's) counsel which
the Court cannot give credence to such explanation. Here, counsel of record for the petitioner is the Salvador
& Parungao Law Firm, and not an attorney who is in solo practice. If one attorney is unable to comply with the
60-day reglementary period, another attorney of the Law Firm can assist him.

Furthermore, even if the Court considers the petition for certiorari as having been properly filed, it would still
be denied for lack of merit for failure of the petiotioner to discharge the burden that the rial court acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Here, prosecution failed to present
Espiritu to the court.

Therefore, the petition is denied for lack of merit.

BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner

vs.
ANTONIO CHOA, Respondent

Issue: WON the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer

Respondent, then president and general manager of Camden Industries, Inc. (Camden), executed
several Trust Receipt Agreements with Nos. 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0024, 0025, 0046 and 0047 in
favor of Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc.) for which there is now due the sum of
Php 7,875,904.96 under the terms of which the accused agreed to sell the same with express
obligation to remit to the complainant bank proceeds of the sale and/or turn over the same if not sold
or disposed of in accordance with the said Trust Receipt Agreements on demand. However despite
repeated demands, respondent failed and refused to account for and/or remit the proceeds of the
sale to the prejudice of complainant bank.

Respondent Choa was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 115, or the Trust Receipts
Law, to the prejudice of BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO), the private complainant.

The prosecution presented Gerard K. Santiago (Santiago) and Froilan Carada (Carada) as its
witnesses. Their testimony revealed that per Civil Case No. 70098, entitled "CAMDEN Industries,
Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank" (Pasig civil case), which had been elevated to the Court of Appeals, BDO
owed Camden the judgment award of P90 million.

The prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence on August 20, 2014 which gave
Choa 10 days to comment on the prosecution's evidence. Choa filed his Comment on September
25, 2014. Thereafter, Choa filed a Motion for Leave (To file Demurrer to Evidence),  attached to
16

which was his Demurrer to Evidence. He argued that

G.R. No. 124171            March 18, 2002

LETICIA R. MERCIALES, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSELITO
NUADA, PAT. EDWIN MORAL, ADONIS NIEVES, ERNESTO LOBETE, DOMIL GRAGEDA, and
RAMON "POL" FLORES, respondents.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: