4/18/2016

G.R.No.L45137

TodayisMonday,April18,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.L45137September23,1985
FEJ.BAUTISTAandMILAGROSJ.CORPUS,petitioners,
vs.
HON.MALCOLMG.SARMIENTO,DistrictJudge,CourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga,BranchIandthe
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.

CUEVAS,J.:
In this special civil action of certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, petitioners assail respondent
Judge Malcolm G. Sarmiento's denial of their Motion to Dismiss filed in the nature of demurrer to evidence in
Criminal Case No. 808 for Estafa entitled "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FE BAUTISTA, MILAGROS
CORPUSandTERESITAVERGERE",pendingbeforethedefunctCourtofFirstInstanceofPampangaBranchI.
AninformationchargingFeBautista,MilagrosCorpusandTeresitaVergerewithestafawasfiledbeforethesala
ofJudgeMalcolmG.Sarmiento.Thethirdaccused,TeresitaVergere,wasgrantedaseparatetrial.Toproveits
case, the prosecution presented during the trial the private complainant, Dr. Leticia C.Yap, as its only witness.
Thereafter,petitioners,believingtheprosecutionfailedtoprovetheirguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt,movedto
dismissalthecasebywayofdemurrertotheevidence.
InanOrderdatedJune3,1976respondentjudgedeniedsaidmotion.1TheOrderstates:
FeBautistaandMilagrosCorpus,accused,throughcounsel,fileda"MotontoDismiss"(Demurrerto
Evidence)totheinformationchargingthetwoaccusedforEstafa,TheotherthirdaccusedTeresita
Vergere,grantedasseparatetrial.
The grounds alleged in the Motion to Dismiss are as follows: First, the infrmation alleges that the two accused
receivedjewelriesfromDr.LeticiaC.YaponApril19,1975onconsignment.Thedefense'contentionisthatthe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/sep1985/gr_l45137_1985.html

1/5

4/18/2016

G.R.No.L45137

jewelries were received by the said accused by virtue of purchase and sale. The defense overlooks the other
allegationintheInformationspecificallyalleging:
Thatthesepiecesofjewelriesshouldbesoldbytheaccusedoncommissionbasisand
topayortodelivertheproceedsthereoftoDr.LeticiaC.Yapif sold,andifnotsoldto
returnsaidjewelries....
In spite of represented demands made on the said accused, said accused failed and
refusedandstillfailsandrefusestoreturnthejewelriesordelivertheproceedsthereof
to the damage and prejudice of said Dr. Leticia C. Yap in the total amount of
P77,300.00.
Themeaningofconsignmentisnotasale.
Itmeansthatthegoodssentbyonepersontoanother,tobesoldordisposedofbythe
latterforandonaccountoftheformer.Thetransmissionofthegoods.
AgencyiswithintheforegoingmeaningbyBouvier'sLawDictionary(Vol.1,pp.619620)
The offended party testified that the accused acted as her agents for the sale of the jewelries.
Secondground,thattheprosecutionfailedtoestablishthepriordemandto prove misappropriation
on the part of the accused. Exhibits B and B1 are documentary evidence to establish demand
through Atty. Gorospe made by the offended party prior to the filing of the case. This letter of
demandwassubsequentlymadeafterseveralpreviousoraldemandsweremadebythecomplainant
onsaidaccused.
The Court believes that the prosecution established a prima facie case of Estafa alleged in the
Informationagainstsaidaccusedontheevidencepresentedsofaronrecord.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby denies the defense' Motion to Dismiss and orders the
trialofthiscaseforthereceptionofevidenceoftheaccusedonJuly9,1976at8:00o'clockinthe
morning.
SOORDERED.
Accordingly, a motion for reconsideration was duly filed 2 but was likewise denied "for lack of merit 3 Hence, this
petition.

Initially, it is necessary to point out that the remedy of certiorari is improper, The respondent Judge's order
denying the petitioners' motion to dismiss the complaint by way of demurrer to the evidence is merely an
interlocutory order, It cannot, therefore, be the subject of a petition for certiorari. What should have been done
wastocontinuewiththetrialofthecaseandhadthedecisionbeenadverse,toraisetheissueonappeal.4
The rule that certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, however, admits an exception. This is when the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/sep1985/gr_l45137_1985.html

2/5

4/18/2016

G.R.No.L45137

questioned order is an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. 5 But, even granting petitioners the benefit of the
exception, still certiorari would not lie. For, as would be shortly explained, there was no arbitrary exercise of judicial
authority.

ItisthecontentionofpetitionersthatrespondentJudgelostjurisdictiontoproceedwiththetrialofthecaseand
thathewasindutyboundtoacquitthem,consideringhisfindingsindenyingtheirmotiontodismissthat"....the
prosecution established a prima facie case of Estafa alleged in the Information against said accused on the
evidencepresentedsofaronrecord".Petitionersfurtherarguethatinacriminalcase,convictioncanbehadonly
uponproofbeyondreasonabledoubtandnotonamereprimafaciecase.
Sincethedenialofthemotiontodismisswasanchoredonafindingofaprimafaciecase,aclearunderstanding
ofthetermanditsimplicationsisinorder.
A prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counterbalance the
general presumption of innocence, and warrant a conviction, if not encountered and controlled by
evidencetendingtocontradictit,andrenderitimprobable,ortoproveotherfactsinconsistentwithit,
andtheestablishmentofaprimafaciecasedoesnottakeawaythepresumptionofinnocencewhich
mayintheopinionofthejurybesuchastorebutandcontrolit.ExparteParr288P.852,855,106
Cal.
App.95.6
There is no denying that in a criminal case, unless the guilt of the accused is established by proof beyond
reasonabledoubt,heisentitledtoanacquittal.Butwhenthetrialcourtdeniespetitioners'motiontodismissby
wayofdemurrertoevidenceonthegroundthattheprosecutionhadestablishedaprimafaciecaseagainstthem,
theyassumeadefiniteburden.Itbecomesincumbentuponpetitionerstoadduceevidencetomeetandnullify,if
notoverthrow,theprimafaciecaseagainstthem. 7This is due to the shift in the burden of evidence, and not of the
burdenofproofaspetitionerswouldseemtobelieve.

Whenaprimafaciecaseisestablishedbytheprosecutioninacriminalcase,asinthecaseatbar,theburdenof
proofdoesnotshifttothedefense.Itremainsthroughoutthetrialwiththepartyuponwhomitisimposedthe
prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the
caseinthecourseofthetrial. 8Thisburdenofgoingforwardwiththeevidenceismetbyevidencewhichbalancesthat
introducedbytheprosecution.Thentheburdenshiftsback.

A prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of greater weight.
Defendant'sevidencewhichequalizestheweightofplaintiff'sevidenceorputsthecaseinequipoiseissufficient.
Asaresult,plaintiffwillhavetogoforwardwiththeproof.Shouldithappenthatatthetrialtheweightofevidence
isequallybalancedoratequilibriumandpresumptionsoperateagainstplaintiffwhohastheburdenofproof,he
cannotprevail.9
Inthecaseatbar,theorderdenyingpetitioners'motiontodismiss,requiredthemtopresenttheirevidence.They
refusedand/orfailedtodoso.Thisjustifiedaninferenceoftheirguilt.Theinevitableresultwasthattheburdenof
evidenceshiftedonthemtoprovetheirinnocence,oratleast,raisesareasonabledoubtastotheirguilt.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/sep1985/gr_l45137_1985.html

3/5

4/18/2016

G.R.No.L45137

Petitioners,likewise,assignaserrortheorderofrespondentJudgedirectingthemtopresenttheirevidenceafter
thedenialoftheirmotiontodismiss.Bydoingso,theycontendthatrespondentJudgewould,ineffect,berelying
onthepossibleweaknessofthedefense'evidence,ratherthanonthestrengthoftheprosecution'sownevidence
inresolvingtheirguiltorinnocence,
We find petitioners' aforesaid submission utterly devoid of merit. Such a procedure finds support in the case of
Arbriolvs.Homeres10whereinweheldthat
NowthattheGovernmentcannotappealincriminalcasesifthedefendantwouldbeplacedthereby
indoublejeopardy(Sec.2,Rule118),thedismissalofthecaseforinsufficiencyoftheevidenceafter
the prosecution has rested terminates the case then and there. But if the motion for dismissal is
denied, the court should proceed to hear the evidence for the defense before entering judgment
regardlessofwhetherornotthedefensehadreserveditsTighttopresentevidenceintheeventits
motion for dismissal be deniedThe reason is that it is the constitutional right of the accused to be
heard in his defense before sentence is pronounced on him. Of course if the accused has no
evidence to present or expressly waives the right to present it, the court has no alternative but to
decidethecaseupontheevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionalone.(Emphasissupplied)
WHEREFORE,findingtheordercomplainedoftobewelltakenandtherebeingnograveabuseofdiscretionthat
attendeditsissuance,theinstantpetitionisDISMISSEDwithcostsagainstpetitioners.
ThePresidingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPampangawherethiscaseisnowassigned,isherebyordered
tocontinueimmediatelywiththetrialofCriminalCaseNo.808untilitsfinaldisposition.
SOORDERED.
Concepcion,Jr.,AbadSantos,EscolinandAlampay,JJ.,concur.
Aquino(Chairman),J.,intheresult.

Footnotes
1Annex"B".
2Annex"C".
3Annex"D".
4Gamboavs.Victoriano,90SCRA40.
5CoChuanSengvs.CA,128SCRA308
6Words&PhrasesPermanentEdition33,p.545.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/sep1985/gr_l45137_1985.html

4/5

4/18/2016

G.R.No.L45137

7MoranRulesofCourt,Vol.III,pp.542543Peoplevs.UpaoMoro101Phil.1226.
8FlorenzD.Regalado,RemedialLawCompendium,1970Ed.,p.795
920Am.Jur.110203.
1084Phil.525.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/sep1985/gr_l45137_1985.html

5/5