Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 603 views

    CRIMPRO Salazar vs. People G.R. No. 151931

    Uploaded by

    Joshua John Espiritu
    The petitioner purchased rice using checks that were dishonored. She was charged with estafa but filed a demurrer to evidence. The court granted the demurrer, acquitting her of criminal liability but also ordering her to pay civilly without allowing her to present evidence. The Supreme Court found this denied her due process. When a demurrer to evidence is granted, the accused has the right to present evidence on both the criminal and civil aspects. By deciding civil liability without hearing the accused's evidence, her constitutional right to due process was violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CRIMPRO Salazar vs. People G.R. No. 151931

    Uploaded by

    Joshua John Espiritu
    603 views1 page
    The petitioner purchased rice using checks that were dishonored. She was charged with estafa but filed a demurrer to evidence. The court granted the demurrer, acquitting her of criminal liability but also ordering her to pay civilly without allowing her to present evidence. The Supreme Court found this denied her due process. When a demurrer to evidence is granted, the accused has the right to present evidence on both the criminal and civil aspects. By deciding civil liability without hearing the accused's evidence, her constitutional right to due process was violated.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CRIMPRO-Salazar-vs.-People-G.R.-No.-151931

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner purchased rice using checks that were dishonored. She was charged with estafa but filed a demurrer to evidence. The court granted the demurrer, acquitting her of criminal liability but also ordering her to pay civilly without allowing her to present evidence. The Supreme Court found this denied her due process. When a demurrer to evidence is granted, the accused has the right to present evidence on both the criminal and civil aspects. By deciding civil liability without hearing the accused's evidence, her constitutional right to due process was violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    603 views1 page

    CRIMPRO Salazar vs. People G.R. No. 151931

    Uploaded by

    Joshua John Espiritu
    The petitioner purchased rice using checks that were dishonored. She was charged with estafa but filed a demurrer to evidence. The court granted the demurrer, acquitting her of criminal liability but also ordering her to pay civilly without allowing her to present evidence. The Supreme Court found this denied her due process. When a demurrer to evidence is granted, the accused has the right to present evidence on both the criminal and civil aspects. By deciding civil liability without hearing the accused's evidence, her constitutional right to due process was violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ANAMER SALAZAR v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and J.Y.

    BROTHERS
    MARKETING CORPORATION - G.R. No. 151931, 23 September 2003, Second Division

    Facts:

    Petitioner Anamer Salazar purchased 300 cavans of rice from J.Y. Brothers Marketing. As payment for these,
    she gave a check drawn against the Prudential Bank by one Nena Timario. J.Y. accepted the check upon the
    petitioner’s assurance that it was good check. Upon presentment, the check was dishonored because it was
    drawn under a closed account. Upon being informed of such dishonor, petitioner replaced the check drawn
    against the Solid Bank, which, however, was returned with the word “DAUD” (Drawn against uncollected
    deposit).
    After the prosecution rested its case, the petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court. The trial
    court rendered judgment acquitting the petitioner of the crime charged but ordering her to pay, as payment of
    her purchase. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect of the decision with a plea
    that she be allowed to present evidence pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, but the court denied the
    motion.

    Issues: WON Salazar was denied due process as she was not given the opportunity to adduce evidence to
    prove that she was not civilly liable to Yao. YES.

    Rationale:

    The demurrer to evidence partakes of the nature of a motion to dismiss the case for failure of the prosecution
    to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a case where the accused files a demurrer to evidence without
    leave of court, he thereby waives his right to present evidence and submits the case for decision on the basis
    of the evidence of the prosecution. On the other hand, if the accused is granted leave to file a demurrer to
    evidence, he has the right to adduce evidence not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect of the
    case if his demurrer is denied by the court.

    If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused has the right to adduce
    evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which
    the civil liability may arise did not exist. If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only
    granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability of the
    accused to the private offended party, said judgment on the civil aspect of the case would be a nullity
    for the reason that the constitutional right of the accused to due process is thereby violated.

    This is so because when the accused files a demurrer to evidence, the accused has not yet adduced evidence
    both on the criminal and civil aspects of the case. The only evidence on record is the evidence for the
    prosecution. What the trial court should do is to issue an order or partial judgment granting the demurrer to
    evidence and acquitting the accused; and set the case for continuation of trial for the petitioner to adduce
    evidence on the civil aspect of the case, and for the private complainant to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal
    after which the parties may adduce their sub-rebuttal evidence as provided for in Section 11, Rule 119 of the
    Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the court shall render judgment on the civil aspect of the
    case on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution and the accused.

    In this case, the petitioner was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal
    Code. The civil action arising from the delict was impliedly instituted since there was no waiver by the private
    offended party of the civil liability nor a reservation of the civil action. Neither did he file a civil action before
    the institution of the criminal action.

    The petitioner was granted leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence. The court issued an order
    granting the demurrer on its finding that the liability of the petitioner was not criminal but only civil.
    However, the court rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case and ordered the petitioner to pay
    for her purchases from the private complainant even before the petitioner could adduce evidence
    thereon. Patently, therefore, the petitioner was denied her right to due process.

    You might also like