Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The Katrina Halili vs. Hayden Kho case: What is a demurrer to evidence? Could Hayden be forced to testify in court?
The RA 9262 psychological violence case filed by Katrina against Hayden was dismissed yesterday by Judge Rodolfo Bonifacio of Branch 159 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. Lets take a look at some of the legal issues involved:
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt. The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
or appeal to a higher court is allowed since this would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. This term simply means that an accused who has been tried and found not guilty of a crime by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be held for trial again for the same offense. (You might recall the 1999 movie starring Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones about a woman accused of murdering her husband; the movie revolved around the issue of double jeopardy.) Why does our Constitution provide that an accused cannot be placed in double jeopardy?Well, without such provision, an accused can be brought to trial again and again and again, ad infinitum. The only exception in the history of the Philippines is the Aquino-Galman double murder case; despite the acquittal of the accused, the Supreme Court allowed the retrial because of the connivance between the judge and the defense.
Could Hayden been forced to testify by the prosecution? Could the defense refuse to present him as a witness for himself?
As I stated above, if the court denied the demurrer, the trial would continue and the defense must present its evidence. [1] Could Hayden been forced, either by the judge or by the prosecution, to take the witness stand? No, because our Constitution provides that a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself. [2] Could the defense refuse to present Hayden to testify on his behalf? Yes. This is provided under Section 1 of Rule 115. The refusal of the accused to take the witness stand cannot be taken against him. No inference of guilt can be drawn for his refusal to testify. Note: One news story, reporting on the dismissal of the case, stated in its lead that Hayden Kho is now a free man. This is totally inaccurate in view of the Constitutional provision on the presumption of innocence of
the accused. Any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until and unless the State has proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Posted by Atty. Gerry T. Galacio at Wednesday, December 15, 2010