G.R. No. 119010 - Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals

Paz T. Bernardo (petitioner) was charged with four counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Crim. Cases Nos. Q-93-46792 to Q-93-46795).
Private complainant Florita Ronquillo-Concepcion (respondent) later executed an Affidavit of Desistance which led to the dismissal of two of the cases, leaving two cases (Q-93-46792 and Q-93-46793) for trial.

The prosecution rested after presenting its last witness and offered its exhibits. The hearing was set for the reception of evidence from the prosecution.
The court invited the defense to present evidence.
The defense counsel asked for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, specifically citing lack of proof on where the checks were issued and dishonored, and the absence of valid notice of dishonor.
The prosecution opposed this motion, asserting the checks were dishonored in Manila but deposited in Quezon City, and presented documentary evidence and witness testimony to that effect.
The court denied the motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, finding the defense’s grounds not well taken.
Defense counsel renewed the motion to file a demurrer to evidence despite the denial of leave, which the court declared dilatory and considered akin to postponement.
The court considered the defense to have waived the right to present evidence and deemed the case submitted for decision based solely on the prosecution’s evidence, setting the promulgation date.

Petitioner challenged the RTC order before the Court of Appeals by way of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, arguing grave abuse of discretion for depriving petitioner of the right to present evidence after the denial of motion for leave.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision modifying the RTC order, directing the trial court to set the cases for trial for reception of evidence for the petitioner.
Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision was denied.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contesting the appellate court’s ruling allowing presentation of evidence after denial of leave to file demurrer to evidence.

Sec. 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court governs demurrer to evidence and provides that the court may dismiss the case for insufficiency of evidence after the prosecution rests, either motu proprio or on motion of the accused filed with prior leave of court.
When the accused files such motion without leave, he is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence, and the case is submitted for decision on prosecution evidence only.
If the motion for leave is denied, the accused may still present evidence.
The new rule was first adopted in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, modifying earlier jurisprudence which treated waiver differently, and further modified in 1988.
The Supreme Court and the Committee on Revision of the Rules explained that leave to file demurrer is discretionary and meant to prevent dilatory tactics.

Whether the petitioner's motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence should have been granted.
Whether the petitioner waived the right to present evidence after the trial court denied the motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence but the petitioner insisted on filing the demurrer anyway.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed error in directing the RTC to allow the petitioner to present evidence after denying the leave to file demurrer to evidence.