View full case

ANAMER SALAZAR v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Anamer D. Salazar and co-accused Nena Jaucian Timario were charged with estafa for allegedly conspiring to defraud J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation by issuing a check without sufficient funds. The prosecution presented evidence showing that Salazar purchased 300 cavans of rice and gave a check as payment, which was dishonored due to a closed account. Salazar replaced the check with another one, but it was also dishonored. The trial court acquitted Salazar of the crime charged but ordered her to pay the complainant for the value of the rice. Salazar filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect of the decision, but it was denied. She then filed a petition for review to challenge the trial court's orders.

The petitioner argues that she was denied due process as she was not given the opportunity to present evidence to prove that she was not civilly liable. She asserts that Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should have been applied, which requires the reserved filing of a separate civil action before being held liable. The petitioner cites Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that a civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or instituted prior to the criminal action. According to the petitioner, the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action should have been made before the prosecution presented its evidence. The petitioner argues that the purpose of the criminal action is punishment, while the civil action seeks indemnity for the offended party.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the civil action based on delict is extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

  2. Whether the prosecution can appeal from the judgment of acquittal on the criminal aspect of the case.

  3. Whether the accused has the option to file a demurrer to evidence after the prosecution has rested its case.

  4. Whether the petitioner, by filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, waived his right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgment.

  5. Whether the petitioner, if granted leave to file a demurrer to evidence, had the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case.

  6. Whether or not the petitioner was denied her right to due process.

RULING:

  1. The civil action based on delict is deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

  2. The prosecution cannot appeal from the judgment of acquittal on the criminal aspect of the case as it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

  3. After the prosecution has rested its case, the accused has the option to file a demurrer to evidence with or without leave of court. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. However, if the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives his right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment.

  4. Yes, by filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, the petitioner waived his right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgment on the basis of the prosecution's evidence.

  5. If granted leave to file a demurrer to evidence, the petitioner had the right to adduce evidence not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect of the case.

  6. The Court granted the petition, set aside and nullified the orders of the trial court, and directed the trial court to continue the trial for the reception of evidence on the civil aspect of the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The civil action based on delict is extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

  • The prosecution cannot appeal from the judgment of acquittal on the criminal aspect of the case as it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

  • After the prosecution has rested its case, the accused has the option to file a demurrer to evidence with or without leave of court.

  • Filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of court waives the accused's right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment based on the prosecution's evidence.

  • If granted leave to file a demurrer to evidence, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on both the criminal and civil aspects of the case.

  • Judgment on the civil aspect of the case, in a situation where the accused is acquitted through the grant of a demurrer to evidence, violates the accused's right to due process.

  • Right to due process – In criminal cases, the accused has the right to be heard and to adduce evidence in his or her defense. Denial of this right constitutes a violation of due process.