G.R. No. 167526 - People vs. Tan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167526)

Trial Proceedings and Offer of Evidence

After arraignment and a not-guilty plea, the prosecution formally offered exhibits (A–E with sub-exhibits, K-1, K-10, K-11, Q, R, S, T, W with sub-exhibits, X). The RTC admitted Exhibits A, B, W and X on December 11, 2003 but denied admission of other exhibits. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of those denials was denied by the RTC on January 27, 2004.

Demurrer to Evidence and RTC Disposition

Respondent filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which the RTC permitted; respondent’s demurrer was admitted and, after the prosecution filed opposition, the RTC granted the demurrer on March 16, 2004, dismissing the cases on the ground of insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

Appellate and Supreme Court Procedural History

The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari before the CA contesting the RTC orders (admission rulings and the demurrer grant). The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is final and unappealable because of double jeopardy; the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration at the CA was denied. The prosecution then sought review by this Court under Rule 45.

Single Assignment of Error Presented

The prosecution’s sole assignment of error was that the RTC and CA erred in precluding the People from prosecuting the cases against Dante Tan (i.e., that dismissal via demurrer improperly foreclosed further prosecution).

Governing Legal Principle: Demurrer to Evidence and Double Jeopardy

This Court reaffirms the established rule that a demurrer to evidence filed after the prosecution rests its case, if granted, results in dismissal on the merits tantamount to an acquittal; such an acquittal is final and not appealable because to allow further prosecution or appeal would subject the accused to double jeopardy. The elements of double jeopardy as stated (Rule 117, Sec. 7) are: (1) a sufficient information; (2) a competent court with jurisdiction; (3) arraignment and plea; and (4) conviction or acquittal or dismissal without the accused’s consent.

Exception to Double Jeopardy: Grave Abuse of Discretion/Lack of Jurisdiction

The Court recognizes the limited exception: double jeopardy will not attach if the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction — specifically where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case, the trial was a sham, or a preemptive dismissal deprived the prosecution of due process. Precedents cited include People v. Laguio, Jr., Galman, Bocar, Judge Albano, and Saldana, illustrating that where the prosecution is not afforded a fair chance to present evidence or the trial was a mock proceeding, the acquittal may be set aside by extraordinary remedy.

Application of Law to Factual Record — Opportunity to Present Case

This Court found, upon reviewing the record, that the prosecution in these cases was afforded ample and repeated opportunities to present and formally offer evidence. The chronology shows completion of initial presentation (September 18, 2001) and filing of a formal offer (filed formally November 24, 2003), allowance to withdraw and re-open prosecution’s case, submission of additional witnesses, multiple motions to admit exhibits, and the filing of opposition to the demurrer. The Court contrasted this record with precedents where the prosecution was prevented from presenting evidence, and concluded that the prosecution here was not denied due process.

Application of Law to Factual Record — Alleged RTC Bias and Procedural Choices

The prosecution argued the RTC displayed bias by not holding the demurrer resolution in abeyance while other motions were pursued, thereby allegedly foreclosing review. The Court held that while holding in abeyance might have been preferable, no rule mandated it; at most any such action would be procedural error or error of judgment, not a jurisdictional defect. Errors that do not render the proceedings a nullity do not vitiate an acquittal protected by double jeopardy.

RTC’s Merits-Based Assessment of Evidence and Reason for Dismissal

The RTC’s 29-page order granting the demurrer canvassed legal requisites for conviction under the RSA and found essential elements unproven. The RTC expressly noted the prosecution failed to introduce the Articles of Incorporation of BWRC, a critical document to establish authorized capital stock, share classes, the number of shares per class, and to compute whether respondent became beneficial owner of ten percent of a particular class on a given

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167526)

Case Citation and Disposition

Supreme Court Second Division decision in G.R. No. 167526, dated July 26, 2010; reported at 639 Phil. 402.
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' June 14, 2004 Resolution and February 24, 2005 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 83433.
Final disposition: Petition DENIED; the June 14, 2004 and February 24, 2005 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83433 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Parties

Petitioner: People of the Philippines.
Respondent: Dante Tan.

Underlying Criminal Cases and Charges

Two Informations were filed on December 21, 2000 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 153, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 119831 and 119832.
Both Informations charged violations of Rule 36 (a)-1 in relation to Sections 32 (a)-1 and 56 of the Revised Securities Act.
Criminal Case No. 119831 alleged that on or about December 10, 1998: Dante Tan, as beneficial owner of 84,030,000 Best World Resources Corporation (BWRC) shares (constituting 18.6% of outstanding shares), failed to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Philippine Stock Exchange a sworn statement of the amount of BWRC shares he beneficially owned within ten days after becoming such beneficial owner; included certificate numbers DT-UK 55485704 and DT-UR 55485776.
Criminal Case No. 119832 alleged that on or about June 18, 1999: Dante Tan, as beneficial owner of 75,000,000 BWRC shares (also stated as constituting 18.6% of outstanding shares), likewise failed to file the required sworn statement within ten days after becoming such beneficial owner.
The Informations charged that the alleged failures were in violation of the Revised Securities Act and/or rules and regulations prescribed pursuant thereto, with the allegation “CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Arraignment, Plea and Trial Commencement

Respondent Dante Tan was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Trial ensued in the RTC.

Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence and RTC Rulings on Exhibits

On November 24, 2003, the prosecution made its formal offer of evidence, consisting of multiple exhibits (Exhibits “A” to “E” with sub-exhibits; “K-1,” “K-10,” “K-11”; “Q,” “R,” “S,” “T”; “W” with sub-exhibits; and “X”).
On December 11, 2003, the RTC issued an Order admitting Exhibits “A,” “B,” “W” and “X,” but denying admission of all other prosecution exhibits, citing grounds stated in that Order.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 11, 2003 Order, which the RTC denied in an Order dated January 27, 2004.
These rulings on exhibit admissibility formed part of the prosecutions’ complaints before the Court of Appeals and subsequent certiorari petition.

Respondent’s Demurrer to Evidence and RTC Granting Thereof

On December 18, 2003, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence and attached the Demurrer to Evidence.
On January 29, 2004, the RTC granted leave to file the demurrer and admitted the attached Demurrer to Evidence; the RTC ordered the prosecution to file an opposition.
The prosecution filed its Opposition to the Demurrer on February 18, 2004; respondent filed a Reply.
On March 16, 2004, the RTC issued an Order granting respondent’s Demurrer to Evidence. The dispositive portion of the March 16, 2004 Order reads: “WHEREFORE, finding the Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Dante Tan to be meritorious, the same is GRANTED. SO ORDERED.”
The Court of Appeals later held that the dismissal by grant of a demurrer to evidence is an acquittal on the merits and unappealable because an appeal would subject the accused to double jeopardy.

Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals and CA Rulings

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC Orders dated December 11, 2003; January 27, 2004; and March 16, 2004 (the copy of the petition shows a stamp received by the CA on April 15, 2004).
On June 14, 2004, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the petition, stating that the petition was dismissed outright for want of merit, and explaining that a dismissal by demurrer to evidence constitutes an acquittal and is unappealable because an appeal would effect double jeopardy.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the CA, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated February 24, 2005.
Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Assignment of Error on Certiorari

Petitioner’s sole assignment of error: “RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN PRECLUDING THE PEOPLE FROM PROSECUTING ITS CASES AGAINST DANTE TAN.”

Law on Demurrer to Evidence and Double Jeopardy (as Applied by the Court)

The Court reiterated the general rule: a demurrer to evidence filed after the prosecution has rested its case and which is granted involves an appreciation of the prosecution’s evidence and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt; such dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal and is final and unappealable because an appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy (citing People v. Sandiganbayan).
The elements constituting double jeopardy were recited: (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his express consent.
The Court found these four elements present in this case:
- The Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 119831 and 119832 were sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction.
- The RTC had jurisdiction over the cases.
- Respondent was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
- The RTC dismissed the cases on a demurrer to evidence for insufficiency of evidence, amounting to an acquittal from which no appeal can be had.

Exception to Double Jeopardy: Grave Abuse of Discretion / Lack of Jurisdiction

The Court acknowledged the exception that double jeopardy will not attach when the tri