Title
Cabador vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 186001
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2009
Antonio Cabador, accused of murder, filed a motion to dismiss citing prolonged trial delays and violation of his right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, reversing lower court decisions that misclassified his motion as a demurrer to evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186001)

Procedural History and Core Issue

After multiple extensions granted to the prosecution to submit its formal offer of evidence, the prosecution finally made the offer on the same day Cabador filed his motion to dismiss (August 1, 2006). The RTC treated Cabador’s motion as a demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court, thereby ruling that he waived his right to present evidence in defense and deemed the case submitted for decision. This prompted Cabador to seek relief from the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s rulings. Subsequently, Cabador filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether Cabador’s motion to dismiss was a demurrer to evidence that waived his right to present evidence, or a bona fide motion invoking his right to speedy trial.

Legal Framework on Demurrer to Evidence and Motion to Dismiss

Under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a demurrer to evidence is a pleading filed after the prosecution rests, moving for dismissal on the ground of insufficient evidence. When filed without leave of court, it operates as a waiver of the accused’s right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment based solely on the prosecution’s evidence. Conversely, a motion to dismiss based on denial of the right to a speedy trial challenges the delay and oppressiveness of the proceedings without necessarily conceding the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Motion and Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court analyzed Cabador’s motion in light of the three-part test established in Enojas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections to distinguish a demurrer to evidence from a motion to dismiss: (1) the good faith allegations made therein; (2) the stage of proceedings at the time of filing; and (3) the primary objective of the filing party. Cabador’s motion primarily detailed the protracted nature of the case, repeated delays, failure of the prosecution to timely make a formal offer of evidence, continued detention since 2001, and violations of his right to speedy trial. Brief lines commenting on the alleged insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence were conclusory and did not dissect particular testimonies, evidence, or elements of the crime.

The Court emphasized that a demurrer to evidence implies that the prosecution has fully rested its case, which was not so here as the formal offer was made on the same day Cabador filed his motion, and no objection or ruling on the offer had as yet occurred. This negated the notion that the motion was intended as a demurrer. Further, considering the extensive invocation of speedy trial rights and the factual context, the Court held that Cabador’s motion was genuinely a motion to dismiss grounded on the violation of his constitutional right, not a demurrer to evidence.

Implications on the Right to Present Evidence and Trial Procedure

The Court ruled that Cabador did not waive his right to present evidence and that the RTC improperly treated the motion to dismiss as a demurrer filed without leave of court. It underscored the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.