Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Valencia v.

Sandiganbayan
October 17, 2005 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | Petition for Certiorari | Offer and Objection

PETITIONER: Rodolfo Valencia


RESPONDENT: Sandiganbayan
SUMMARY: Valncia, Governor of Oriental Mindoro, was charged of a violation under RA 3019 for appointing Umbao, a
candidate who lost the previous election, as Councilo of Polo, Oriental Mindoro. A joint Stipulation of Facts was agreed by the
parties but Valencia refused to sign the same. The prosecution rested its case based on said stipulation. Motion for leave to file
demurrer to evidence was filed by Valencia. An order was rendered by the Sandiganbayan based on the stipulation; however, said
order was recalled upon motion of the prosecution. Sandiganbayan allowed the prosecution to present evidence and denied the
motion of Valencia. Valencia filed petition for certiorari to the SC. SC dismissed the petition stating that the joint stipulation of
facts was not yet formally offered as evidence. Hence, the motion for leave to file demurrer by Valencia was premature.
DOCTRINE: Before an evidence may be admitted, the rules require that the same be formally offered, otherwise, it cannot be
considered by the court. A prior formal offer of evidence concludes the case for the prosecution and determines the timeliness of the
filing of a demurrer to evidence.

FACTS: for leave to file the same must be filed after the prosecution rests its
1. An information was filed against Valencia for violation of Section case. But before an evidence may be admitted, the rules require that
3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Valencia the same be formally offered, otherwise, it cannot be considered by
(Governor of Oriental Mindoro) was accused of appointing Cresente the court. A prior formal offer of evidence concludes the case for the
Umbao, a candidate who lost the previous election, as a Councilor of prosecution and determines the timeliness of the filing of a demurrer
Polo, Oriental Mindoro within the prohibitive period of 1 year after to evidence.
an election in violation of Sec. 6, Art IX B of the Constitution.
Valencia's motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence is premature
2. The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts. Sandiganbayan because the prosecution had yet to formally rest its case. When the
ordered that the said stipulation be signed by the parties. However, motion was filed the prosecution had not yet marked nor formally
Valencia did not sign the same. offered the Joint Stipulation of Facts as evidence. At any rate, had the
prosecution actually filed said motion and formally offered the
3. The Prosecutor rested the case based on the stipulation and waived evidence before the Sandiganbayan, the motion for leave to file
presentation of testimonial and documentary evidence. demurrer to evidence still suffers prematurity because it was filed on
January 19, 2004, or one day before the date of the motion and offer
4. Valencia filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence on January 20, 2004. In fact, Valencia admitted in his motion for
because the prosecution failed to present, mark or offer evidence that leave to file demurrer to evidence that the prosecution failed to mark
would substantiate the charge against him. Petitioner asserted that the and offer any evidence against him.
Joint Stipulation of Facts is inadmissible because it lacks his
signature and for failure of the prosecution to submit evidence to 2. Admission of additional evidence is addressed to the sound
establish the injury caused to the government and the presence of discretion of the trial court. The primary consideration in allowing
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence the reopening of a case is for the accused to have his day in court and
in the appointment of Umbao, which are among the essential the opportunity to present counter evidence.
elements of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA. 3019.
Valencia cannot claim denial of due process because he will have the
5. The prosecution filed an opposition stating the the motion is opportunity to contest the evidence adduced against him and to prove
premature as they have yet to formally offer the Joint Stipulation of his defenses after the prosecution concludes the presentation of its
Facts. Sandiganbayan directed Valencia to sign the Joint Stipulation evidence. Moreover, the order of the trial court granting the reception
but the latter filed a Manifestation stating that his former counsel was of additional evidence for the prosecution is not technically a
not authorized to enter any agreement and that he came to know of reopening of the case. A motion to reopen presupposes that either or
the same belatedly. both parties have formally offered and closed their evidence.

6. Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-Trial Order based on the Joint 3. Valencia never contested the prosecutorial proceedings nor timely
Stipulation of Facts. However, it recalled the said order in view of challenged the pendency of the case after arraignment. Under Section
Valencias refusal to sign. The motion for leave to file demurrer was 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, failure of the accused to move for
denied and the case was set for presentation of the prosecutions dismissal prior to trial constitutes a waiver of his right to speedy trial.
evidence.
Also, while petitioner is free to acknowledge or reject the Joint
ISSUE/S: Stipulation of Facts, the trial court cannot be said to have abused its
1. WON the motion for leave to was premature YES discretion in ordering petitioner to sign the same considering that said
2. WON prosecution can present evidence after it has orally stipulation was not yet formally offered by the prosecution. At that
manifested its intention to rest its case YES stage, said document cannot yet be considered officially an evidence
for the prosecution. The refusal therefore of petitioner to affix his
3. WON Valncias right to speedy trial was violated NO
signature in the said stipulation or in the Pre-trial Order embodying
the same is sufficient justification for the trial court to recall the latter
RULING: Petition is DISMISSED.
and in the exercise of its sound discretion, set the case for
presentation of the prosecutions evidence.
RATIO:
1. A demurrer to evidence tests the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
prosecutions evidence. As such, a demurrer to evidence or a motion

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi