Case Digest (G.R. No. 140904)
Facts:
Rene S. Ong, Magdaleno B. Albarracin, Jr., Petronio C. Aaliwin and J. O. Nerit v. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140904, October 09, 2000, the Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court.On February 8, 1993, Zeny Alfonso purchased a paper bag‑making machine for P362,000.00 from Solid Cement Corporation; when she went to the plant in Antipolo she was told the machine could not be delivered because it was mortgaged to a creditor. Petitioners (officers/employees of Solid Cement) offered to refund the money, which Alfonso refused, and she filed a criminal complaint. The City Prosecutor of Makati initially dismissed the complaint as civil in nature, but the Department of Justice reversed that dismissal.
An Information for estafa under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code was filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati on October 18, 1994. After pretrial the prosecution presented Alfonso as its sole witness and offered several documentary exhibits (photocopies) — including an alleged approval of the sale bearing petitioners’ names, an official receipt, plant gate passes, demand and correspondence letters, a memorandum of Solid Cement officers, and a provincial prosecutor’s resolution. Petitioners objected that the offered documents were unauthenticated, uncertified photocopies.
On July 12, 1996 petitioners filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to the evidence and attached the demurrer; on August 19, 1996 the MeTC denied the demurrer and found a prima facie case, ordering that petitioners be held for trial. Acting on a petition for certiorari and prohibition, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Judge Teofilo Guadiz, Jr., reversed on May 19, 1997 and ordered dismissal of Criminal Case No. 157290, concluding the prosecution’s evidence was legally insufficient.
The People elevated the RTC order to the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 8, 1999 the CA 13th Division reversed the RTC, set aside its dismissal, reinstated the case in the MeTC, and allowed petitioners to either present their evidence or submit the case for decision based on the prosecutor’s evidence; the CA made permanent a writ of preliminary injunction it had earlier issued. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, contending the CA (1) erre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was certiorari a proper remedy to challenge the MeTC’s interlocutory denial of the demurrer to evidence, or should appeal have been resorted to?
- Did the MeTC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the demurrer to evidence by admitting and relying on the prosecution’s documentary exhibits?
- Did the RTC’s grant of the demurrer to evidence constitute a valid acquittal whose effect is to bar further prosecution under the constitutio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)