G.R. No. 201022 - Technical Education and Skills Development Authority vs. Abragar

Pedro Mahinay was charged with the crime of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Information alleged that on or about October 20, 1989, at around 11:00 a.m. in Barangay Tubigagmanok, Asturias, Cebu, Mahinay, by means of force, violence, and intimidation, unlawfully had carnal knowledge of Milagrosa Bermil, a married woman, against her will.

She knew the accused as the husband of her sister.
On October 20, 1989, while walking home from her farm along a path surrounded by bushes, the accused suddenly ran towards her, grabbed her, and pressed a sharp instrument (plamingko) to her neck.
She cried and struggled but fell to the ground where the accused knelt on her thighs, told her to keep quiet, and threatened to kill her if she made noise.
He then laid on top of her, lowered her shorts and panties, and forcibly had sexual intercourse, ejaculating inside her.
She cried continuously, and the accused threatened her not to tell her husband or his wife (her sister), warning he would kill them if she reported the incident.
She immediately went home afterward, while the accused also left.
She identified her torn clothes worn during the incident and preserved them as evidence.
She informed Barangay Councilwoman Natividad Migallen and her husband about the incident the same day.

Milagrosa reported to her at noon on the day of the incident.
She observed Milagrosa’s clothes torn but did not observe any injury on her person.
She accompanied Milagrosa and her husband to the Municipal Building the next day.

He saw accused overtaking Milagrosa, hugging her, and holding a knife at her.
He witnessed the accused kneeling on Milagrosa’s thighs and laying on top of her as she struggled.
He was too frightened to intervene and did not inform any authority or the husband about the incident.

Conducted a medico-legal examination of Milagrosa on October 22, 1989, approximately 29 hours after the incident.
Found no fresh lacerations or physical injuries but noted inflamed fourchette indicating recent sexual intercourse.
No sperm cells were detected.

After the prosecution rested, the accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence without prior leave of court.
The trial court denied the demurrer and proceeded to judgment based solely on the prosecution’s evidence, disallowing the accused to present evidence.
The trial court convicted the accused on December 1, 1992, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnification to the offended party.

The accused filed an Urgent Motion to Set Aside the Decision and to Allow Presentation of Evidence contending that he had leave of court to file the demurrer.
The trial court denied this motion, asserting no express leave was granted.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the records and found that the trial court had effectively granted permission to file the demurrer through prior orders, notwithstanding failure to explicitly state “leave of court.”
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for the accused to present his evidence.

Whether or not the accused had obtained the court’s leave to file his Demurrer to Evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the accused the right to present evidence after the denial of the Demurrer to Evidence.
Whether the accused’s constitutional right to present evidence was violated by the trial court’s refusal to allow him to present evidence.
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused solely on the prosecution’s evidence without hearing the defense.