Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
***

SECOND DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. S.P. No. 121718
PHILIPPINES
and
MA.
KATRINA IREN P. HALILI, Members:
Petitioners,
SALAZAR-FERNANDO, R.A.,

Chairperson,
PIZARRO, N. B., and
BARRIOS, M. M., JJ.

- versus -

HON.
RODOLFO
R.
BONIFACIO, PRESIDING
JUDGE
OF
THE
REGIONAL
TRIAL Promulgated:
COURT, BRANCH 159 IN
PASIG
CITY,
and AUGUST 1, 2012
HAYDEN KHO, JR.,
Respondents.

x --------------------------------- x

DECISION
BARRIOS, M. M., J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
assailing the Order dated 25 January 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court (Branch 159, Pasig City), the
dispositive portion of which reads:
x x x
WHEREFORE, the Notice of Appeal filed by the
prosecution is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 2

SO ORDERED.

The Order dated 03 August 2011 denying private

petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is likewise
assailed.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
An Information dated 17 September 2009 was filed
against private respondent charging him of violating
Sections 5(h) and 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise
known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004, committed as follows:
x x x
That sometime between the month of August and
October 2007 in Pasig City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, who while maintaining a sexual or dating
relationship with Ma. Katrina Iren P. Halili and taking
advantage of her vulnerability, being then in love with
him, did then and there willfully, knowingly, feloniously
and unlawfully take video of their sexual intercourse
without the (sic) her knowledge and consent thereby
personally engaging in purposeful, knowing or reckless
conduct that alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the latter and with the
uploading of their sex video in the internet that was
seen by the public, the same has caused mental and/or
emotional anguish and humiliation to the damage and
prejudice of said Ma. Katrina Iren P. Halili.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

The prosecution tried to prove the two (2) violations

allegedly committed by private respondent: (a) the act of
videotaping the sexual intercourse between him and

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 3

private petitioner without the latter's knowledge and

consent; and, (b) the uploading of the video to the
Internet.
In the course of the trial, however, private petitioner
and her counsel conceded that it was not private
respondent who uploaded the video. Meanwhile, the
ocular inspection of the room where the video was taken
revealed that the camera used was positioned just about
five (5) feet and ten (10) inches from the bed where they
(private petitioner and private respondent) lay and was
obviously visible to them; hence, it cannot be said that
private petitioner was unaware thereof. It was also
disclosed that there were three (3) previous instances
where private petitioner admittedly knew that she was
being filmed while engaging in provocative sensual acts
with private respondent.
After the prosecution's formal offer, public
respondent court issued the Order dated 18 October
2010 admitting all the exhibits of the prosecution.
Thereupon, private respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence and To Cancel
Hearing on 26 October 2010. The actual Demurrer to
Evidence was filed on 28 October 2010.
Public respondent court, in its Order dated 10
December 2010, granted the Demurrer to Evidence and
reasoned that the proximate cause of private petitioner's
mental and emotional anguish was not the act of taking a
video without her knowledge and consent. In fact, public
respondent court concluded from the extant evidence
that private petitioner actually knew that their sexual act
was being video-recorded. The testimonies of Ms. Maria
Cynthia Alcuaz, psychologist of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), and Dr. Romel Tuazon Papa, Chief of
the Neuro-Psychiatric Service of the NBI, tended to show

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 4

that it was actually the uploading of the video and the

resultant public viewing through the internet which
caused the emotional and psychological distress of
private petitioner. Public respondent court thus ruled:
x x x
WHEREFORE, finding the Demurrer to Evidence
filed by the accused Hayden Kho, Jr. to be meritorious,
the same is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court
hereby DISMISSES the above-entitled case for
insufficiency of evidence. Likewise, private complainant
Katrina Iren Pe Halili's claim for civil damages is also
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

The prosecution filed a Notice of Appeal on 17

December 2010, emphasizing that it was entitled to do so
under Section 1, Rule 122 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure. In the herein-assailed Order dated 25
January 2011, public respondent court denied the Notice
of Appeal for lack of merit. The Motion for
Reconsideration thereof was also denied in the
challenged Order dated 03 August 2011.
Private petitioner filed the present Petition for
Certiorari and posed the following issues:
I.
WHETHER
OR
NOT
THE
PUBLIC
RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
159 IN PASIG CITY, GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ASSAILED
ORDER DATED 25 JANUARY 2011.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 5

II.
WHETHER
OR
NOT
THE
PUBLIC
RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ORDER DATED
03 AUGUST 2011 DENYING THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.

OUR

RULING

In considering a demurrer to evidence, the trial court

evaluates the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to
sustain a conviction. Thus, if the trial court grants a
demurrer on the basis that there is no sufficient evidence,
the same is equivalent to the acquittal of the accused.1 An
acquittal is deemed final and immediately executory. It
cannot be appealed as doing so will put the accused in
double jeopardy. It is only in certain cases that the ground of
double jeopardy cannot be invoked, such as in a mistrial or
where the prosecution was denied due process.2 In these
instances, however, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
assailing the acquittal itself on the ground that the trial
court committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting the
demurrer should be filed.3 Unfortunately in this case, private
petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal a remedy unavailing in
case of an acquittal.
The filing of the Demurrer to Evidence is also not
premature. Section 23, Rule 119 of the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure prescribes that the demurrer may be
filed after the prosecution rests its case. Given the nature of
1
2

Benjamin B. Bangayan, Jr. v. Sally Go Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, 19 October 2011.
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, et al., G.R. No. 130106, 15
July 2005.
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Enrique C. Asis (in his capacity as Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court of Biliran Province) and Jaime Abordo, G.R. No. 173089,
25 August 2010.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 6

a demurrer, there must already be evidence presented and

admitted that the trial court may evaluate. Hence, a formal
offer must have been made. This prior act concludes the
prosecution's presentation of evidence and determines the
timeliness of a demurrer to evidence.4 Applied to the present
petition, records show that the prosecution formally offered
its evidence on 23 September 2010. The public respondent
court admitted the evidence in its Order dated 18 October
2010. Only after these occurrences did private respondent
file his Urgent Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence.
Verily, the demurrer was filed well after the prosecution
rested its case.
Private petitioner's contention that she should have
been allowed to appeal the acquittal because of her claim for
moral damages also does not hold water. It is true that the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action
unless waived or instituted separately. However, an acquittal
on the basis that the act complained of did not happen or
that the accused was not the perpetrator thereof forecloses
the recovery of any civil liability ex delicto. The appeal on the
civil aspect filed by a private offended party, therefore, may
only prosper on the following grounds:
(a) where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
as only preponderance of evidence is required;
(b) where the court declared that the liability of the
accused is only civil;
(c) where the civil liability of the accused does not
arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the
accused was acquitted.5

4
5

Rodolfo G. Valencia v. The Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165996, 17 October 2005.

Josephine M. Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 155309, 15
November 2005, citing Anamer Salazar vs. The People of the Philippines and V.Y.
Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 151931, 23 September 2003.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 7

Public respondent's dismissal of the case against

accused was premised on its finding that there was no
evidence to prove that the criminal act complained of
actually happened and that it was private petitioner who
committed the same. Stated differently, the prosecution
charged accused with two (2) criminal acts in the
Information. Anent the first, i.e. videotaping the sexual act,
public respondent court found that the charge cannot
prosper because private petitioner consented to or, at least,
had knowledge of the act of videotaping. As for the second
act, i.e., uploading and disseminating the video, it was
admitted that accused did not perpetrate the same. There is,
thus, no finding of the existence of a criminal act from which
a civil liability may arise.
Private petitioner may, perhaps, be mistaken in her
perception of the nature and extent of the civil action that
was instituted with the filing of the criminal action. It must
be stressed that only civil liability arising from the crime or
delict per se is deemed instituted, and not other claims
arising from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. An
offended party may, thus, file a separate civil action based on
a quasi-delict and yet, still intervene in the criminal action as
regards to the civil liability ex delicto. The offended party is
only limited by the principle that he/she cannot recover
more than once for the same act or omission.6
All told, it is Our considered view that public
respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
denying due course to the appeal. A petition for certiorari
must show that the trial court committed an act in such a
capricious, whimsical manner that the abuse of discretion
becomes patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law. A misapplication of facts and evidence or an
erroneous conclusion does not deprive the trial court of
6

Neplum, Inc. v. Evelyn V. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, 11 July 2002.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 8

jurisdiction.7
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered,
Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.

the

instant

SO ORDERED.

MANUEL M. BARRIOS
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO

Associate Justice
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

Arnold James M. Ysidoro v. Hon. Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, et al., G.R. No.
171513, 06 February 2012.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 121718

DECISION

page 9