Title
Ong vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 140904
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2000
A buyer discovered a purchased machine was mortgaged, leading to a criminal estafa case. Courts debated evidence admissibility, culminating in the Supreme Court dismissing the case due to insufficient evidence, invoking double jeopardy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140904)

Case Background

The case originated from a purchase agreement for a paper bag-making machine by Zeny Alfonso from Solid Cement Corporation, which was allegedly compromised as the machine was already mortgaged to another creditor. Alfonso filed a criminal complaint after she was unable to receive the machine, despite prior arrangements. The City Prosecutor initially dismissed her complaint, asserting any liability was civil rather than criminal. However, the Department of Justice reversed this dismissal, leading to the filing of an Information for estafa in the MeTC.

Evidence and Procedural History

The prosecution's sole witness was Zeny Alfonso, who testified about the transaction and her inability to obtain the machine. The petitioners challenged the admissibility of the prosecution's evidence, which consisted mainly of photocopies of various documents relating to the sale. The MeTC denied the petitioners' demurrer to evidence, suggesting that there was a prima facie case against them based on the documents and Alphonso's testimony.

Regional Trial Court's Intervention

Following this, the petitioners sought relief from the Regional Trial Court, which found merit in their arguments and reversed the MeTC's decision, declaring the denial of the demurrer to evidence null and void. The RTC dismissed the criminal case, concluding that the evidence presented did not support a trial.

Court of Appeals Reversal

The People appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of reinstating the criminal case, asserting that the petitioners should have presented their evidence rather than opting for a petition for certiorari. The appellate court argued that the RTC’s dismissal did not equate to an acquittal and that the petitioners could not invoke the double jeopardy principle at this stage.

Legal Issues Raised

The petitioners contested the Court of Appeals' decision on several grounds, including:

  1. The appellate court's mischaracterization of the proper legal remedy following the denial of the demurrer to evidence.
  2. The assertion that the RTC's order constituted an acquittal, barring further prosecution under double jeopardy.
  3. The failure to accurately assess the prosecution's evidence and admissibility.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that the evidence presented by the prosecution was inadmissible due to the lack of authentication of the photocopies. The Court outlined the requirements of Rule 132 pertaining to the admissibility

...continue reading

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