ABQ - RULES 119 TO March 6, 2020 Fri

125
Sec. 15, Rule 119: Examination of witnesses for the
prosecution. – When it satisfactorily appears that a
witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to
appear at the trial as directed by the court, or has to
leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning,
he may be forthwith be conditionally examined before
the court where the case is pending. Such examination,
in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after
reasonable notice to attend the examination has been
served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner
as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the
accused to attend the examination after notice shall be
considered a waiver. The statement taken may be
admitted in behalf of or against the accused.
 Q1: Raul Rodrigo was charged with
robbery with homicide before the Regional
Trial Court of Rizal. After presenting 3
witnesses, the prosecution could no
longer proceed since its 2 most
instrumental witnesses, AB and CD, are
now both permanently residing in the
United States. The prosecutor then moved
to have their depositions taken by way of
written interrogatories. Their depositions
having been taken although without the
Q1: … will be a failure of justice since
at its present state, there is not even a
prima facie case against Rodrigo. Over
the vigorous objection of the defense,
the trial court admitted said
depositions. Rodrigo was convicted
and thereafter sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.
Discuss with reasons the tenability of
the trial court’s ruling on the
A1: The trial court’s ruling on the admission of
the depositions is untenable. Under S15 R119,
the conditional examination of the witnesses for
the prosecution should be done before the court
where the case is pending.
Here, the deposition or examination was not
done in the RTC of Rizal but in fact in the United
States without any opportunity on the part of
Rodrigo to cross-examine AB and CD. Hence
their depositions are inadmissible in evidence
for being violative of S15 R119 and for being
hearsay.
Q2 : As counsel of an accused
charged with homicide, you are
convinced that he can be
utilized as a state witness.
What procedure will you take?
(2006 Bar)
Sec. 17, Rule 119: Discharge of accused to be state
witness. – When two or more persons are jointly
charged with the commission of any offense, upon
motion of the prosecution before resting its case,
the court may direct one or more of the accused to
be discharged with their consent so that they may
be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the
prosecution to present evidence and the sworn
statement of each proposed state witnesses at a
hearing in support of the discharge, the court is
satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of
the…
Sec. 17, Rule 119: Discharge of accused to be state
witness.
(a)… accused whose discharge is requested;
(b)There is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of said accused;
(c)The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d)Said accused does not appear to be the most
guilty; and
(e)Said accused has not at any time been convicted
of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Sec. 17, Rule 119: Discharge of accused
to be state witness.
Evidence adduced in support of
the discharge shall automatically
form part of the trial. If the court
denies the motion for discharge of
the accused as state witness, his
sworn statement shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
A2: As counsel of an accused charged with
homicide, I would ask the prosecutor to
recommend to the court that the accused be made
a state witness. It is the prosecutor who must
recommend and move for the discharge or
acceptance of the accused as a state witness.
There shall be a hearing in support of the discharge
where the prosecution shall present evidence and
the sworn statement of the accused. The accused
may also apply under the Witness Protection
Program.
Q3: Louise is being charged with a frustrated
murder of Roy. The prosecution’s lone witness,
Mariter, testified to having seen Louise prepare
the poison which she later poured into Roy’s
wine glass. Louise sought the disqualification of
Mariter as witness on account of her previous
conviction of perjury.
Can Mariter be utilized as state witness if she is
a co-accused in the criminal case? (94 Bar Q10)
Q3: Louise is being charged with a frustrated
murder of Roy. The prosecution’s lone witness,
Mariter, testified to having seen Louise prepare
the poison which she later poured into Roy’s
wine glass. Louise sought the disqualification of
Mariter as witness on account of her previous
conviction of perjury.
Can Mariter be utilized as state witness if she is
a co-accused in the criminal case? (94 Bar Q10)
A3: No, Mariter cannot be utilized as state
witness.
Under S17, R119, it is required that the
accused who is sought to be discharged as
a state witness has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.
Perjury is an offense involving moral
turpitude. Hence, Mariter cannot be
utilized as a state witness.
Q4: What is reverse trial and
when may it be resorted to?
Explain briefly.
A4: Reverse trial is a trial where the
accused presents his evidence first before
the prosecution submits its evidence. It
may be resorted to when the accused
admits the act or omission charged in the
complaint or information but interpose a
lawful or affirmative defense (S11e, R119).
In civil cases, reverse trial may be resorted
to by agreement of the parties or when the
defendant sets up an affirmative defense.
Q5: Carlos, the accused in a theft case, filed a
demurrer to evidence without leave of court.
The court denied the demurrer to evidence and
Carlos moved to present evidence. The court
denied Carlos’ motion to present evidence and
instead rendered judgment on the basis of the
evidence for the prosecution. Was the court
correct in preventing Carlos from presenting
his evidence and rendering judgment on the
basis of the evidence of the prosecution? Why?
(01 Bar Q1)
A5: Yes, the Court was correct.

S23, R119: When the demurrer to

evidence is filed without leave of court,
the accused waives the right to
present evidence and submits the case
for judgment on the basis of the
evidence of the prosecution.
Q6: Facing a charge of murder, Xander
filed a petition for bail. The petition was
opposed by the prosecution but after
hearing, the court granted bail to Xander.
On the first scheduled hearing on the
merits, the prosecution manifested that it
was not adducing additional evidence and
that it was resting its case. Xander filed a
demurrer to evidence without leave of
court but it was denied by the court.
Q6: Facing a charge of murder, Xander filed a petition for bail.
The petition was opposed by the prosecution but after
hearing, the court granted bail to Xander. On the first
scheduled hearing on the merits, the prosecution manifested
that it was not adducing additional evidence and that it was
resting its case. Xander filed a demurrer to evidence without
leave of court but it was denied by the court.

1. Did the court have the

discretion to deny the demurrer
to evidence under the
circumstances mentioned above?
Q6: Facing a charge of murder, Xander filed a petition for bail. The
petition was opposed by the prosecution but after hearing, the
court granted bail to Xander. On the first scheduled hearing on the
merits, the prosecution manifested that it was not adducing
additional evidence and that it was resting its case. Xander filed a
demurrer to evidence without leave of court but it was denied by
the court.

2. If the answer to the preceding

question is in the affirmative, can
Xander adduce evidence in his
defense after the denial of his
demurrer to evidence?
Q6: Facing a charge of murder, Xander filed a petition for bail.
The petition was opposed by the prosecution but after hearing,
the court granted bail to Xander. On the first scheduled
hearing on the merits, the prosecution manifested that it was
not adducing additional evidence and that it was resting its
case. Xander filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of
court but it was denied by the court.

3. Without further proceeding and

on the sole basis of the evidence
of the prosecution, can the court
legally convict Xander for murder?
 Q7:
When a criminal case is
dismissed on nolle prosequi, can
it later be refiled?
A7: Yes. As a general rule, when a
criminal case is dismissed on nolle
prosequi before the accused is
placed on trial and before he is
called on to plead, thi sis not
equivalent to an acquittal and does
not bar a subsequent prosecution for
the same offense. (Galves vs. Court
of Appeals, 237 SCRA 686 [1984])
Q8: After the prosecution had rested and
made its formal offer of evidence, with the
court admitting all of the prosecution’s
evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to
evidence with leave of court. The
prosecution was allowed to comment
thereon. Thereafter, the court granted the
demurrer, finding that the accused could
not have committed the offense charged.
The prosecution filed a motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the
A8: No. The motion will not prosper.
The Supreme Court has held that the
grant of a demurrer to evidence is
equivalent to an acquittal upon the merits
and is immediately final. (People vs. City
Court of Silay, Dec. 9, 1975). Hence, the
prosecution cannot move for
reconsideration for that would place the
accused in double jeopardy.
Q9: In a B.P. Blg. 22 case, the accused,
John, without leave of court filed a
demurrer to evidence. The demurrer
was granted by the court but it held
John civilly liable for damages to the
private complainant. John argued that
he should have been allowed to
present his evidence on the civil
aspect of the case. Is John correct?
A9: No.
When petitioner filed a demurrer to
evidence without leave of court, the
whole case was submitted for
judgment on the basis of the evidence
presented by the prosecution as the
accused is deemed to have waived the
right to present evidence. At that
juncture, the court is called upon to
decide the case including its civil
Q9a: In an action for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, the court granted the
accused‘s demurrer to evidence which he
filed without leave of court. Although he
was acquitted of the crime charged, he
however was required by the court to pay
the private complainant the face value of
the check. The accused filed a Motion for
Reconsideration regarding the order to
pay the face value of the check on the
following ground: the demurrer to
A9a: The Motion for Reconsideration
should be denied. The ground that the
demurrer to evidence applied only to
the criminal aspect of the case was not
correct because the criminal action for
violation of BP Blg. 22 included the
corresponding civil action (Sec. 1[b],
Rule 111).
When petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of
court, the whole case was submitted for judgment on the basis of
the evidence presented by the prosecution as the accused is
Q10: Compare the effects of a
denial of demurrer to evidence in
a civil case with those of a denial
of demurrer of evidence in a
criminal case. (2003 Bar)
A10: In a civil case, the defendant has the right
to file a demurrer to evidence without leave of
court. If his demurrer is denied, he has the right
to present evidence. If his demurrer is granted
and on appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate court
reverses the order and renders judgment for the
plaintiff, the defendant loses his right to present
evidence (R33).
In a criminal case, the accused has to obtain
leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence. If he
obtains leave of court and his demurrer to
evidence is denied, he has the right to present
A10: If the accused does not obtain leave of court
and his demurrer to evidence is denied, he
waives his right to present evidence and the case
is decided on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution.
The court may also dismiss the action on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence on its own
initiative after giving the prosecution the
opportunity to be heard.
Q11: AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of PBU, a
public utility bus, died on board the bus on account of
the fatal head wounds he sustained as a result of the
strong impact of the collision between the bus and a
dump truck that happened while the bus was still
travelling on EDSA towards Makati. The foregoing
facts, among others, were duly established on
evidence-in-chief by the plaintiff TY, sole heir of AX,
in TY‘s action against the subject common carrier for
breach of contract of carriage. After TY had rested
his case, the common carrier filed a demurrer to
evidence, contending that plaintiff‘s evidence is
insufficient because it did not show (1) that
defendant was negligent and (2) that such negligence
A11: No. The court should not grant
defendant‘s demurrer to evidence
because the case is for breach of contract
of carriage. Proof that the defendant was
negligent and that such negligence was
the proximate cause of the collision is not
required (Articles 1170 and 2201, Civil
Code; Batangas Transportation Co. v.
Caguimbal, 22 SCRA 171 [1968]0; Aboitiz
v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 95 [1984]) .
Q12: AX was charged before the YY Regional
Trial Court with theft of jewelry valued at
P20,000, punishable with imprisonment of up
to 10 years of prision mayor under the Revised
Penal Code. After trial, he was convicted of the
offense charged, notwithstanding that the
material facts duly established during the trial
showed that the offense committed was
estafa, punishable by imprisonment of up to 8
years of prision mayor under the said Code.
No appeal having been taken therefrom, said
judgment of conviction became final. Is the
A12: Yes, the judgment of conviction for
theft upon an information for theft is valid
because the court had jurisdiction to
render judgment. However, the judgment
was grossly and blatantly erroneous. The
variance between the evidence and the
judgment of conviction is substantial since
the evidence is one for estafa while the
judgment is one for theft. The elements of
the two crimes are not the same. One
offense does not necessarily include or is
A12: The judgment of conviction is
reviewable by certiorari even if no appeal
had been taken, because the judge
committed grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in convicting the accused of
theft and in violating due process and his
right to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him, which make the
judgment void. With the mistake in
charging the proper offense, the judge
Q13: The information for the illegal possession of
firearm filed against the accused specifically alleged
that he had no license or permit to possess the
caliber .45 pistol mentioned therein. In its
evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established the
fact the subject firearm was lawfully seized by the
police from the possession of the accused, that is,
while the pistol was tucked at his waist in plain
view, without the accused being able to present any
license or permit to possess the firearm. The
prosecution of such evidence rested his case and
within the period of five days therefrom, the
accused filed a demurrer to evidence, in sum
Q13: The trial court denied the demurrer to
evidence and deemed the accused as having
waived his right to present evidence and
submitted the case for judgment on the basis
of the prosecution evidence. In due time, the
court rendered judgment finding the accused
guilty of the offense charged beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly imposing on
him the penalty described therefor.
Is the judgment of the trial court valid and
proper? Reason. (2004 Bar)
A13: Yes, the judgment of the trial court is
valid. The accused did not ask for leave to
file the demurrer to evidence. He is
deemed to have waived his right to
present evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119).
However, the judgment is not proper or is
erroneous because there was no showing
from the proper office like the Firearms
and Explosive Unit of the Philippine
National Police that the accused has no
1. Ramona is being charged with a frustrated
murder of Benjamin. The prosecution’s lone
witness, Carlo, testified to having seen Ramona
prepare the poison which she later poured into
Benjamin’s wine glass. Ramona sought the
disqualification of Carlo as witness on account
of his previous conviction for the crime of rape.
Can Carlo be utilized as state witness if he is a
co-accused in the criminal case?
2. Carlos, the accused in a theft case, filed a
demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The
court denied the demurrer to evidence. So
Carlos moved to present evidence. The court
denied Carlos’ motion to present evidence and
instead rendered judgment on the basis of the
evidence for the prosecution.
Was the court correct in preventing Carlos
from presenting his evidence and rendering
judgment on the basis of the evidence of the
prosecution? Why?