Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi OG

1/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi
*
G.R. No. 165496. February 12, 2007.
HUN HYUNG PARK, petitioner, vs. EUNG WON CHOI,

respondent.
Pleadings and Practice; Verification; The veracity of the

allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either one’s
own personal knowledge or on authentic records, or both, as
warranted.—The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may be
affirmed based on either one’s own personal knowledge or on
authentic records, or both, as warranted. The use of the
preposition “or” connotes that either source qualifies as a
sufficient basis for verification and, needless to state, the
concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient. Bearing both
a disjunctive and conjunctive sense, this parallel legal
signification avoids a construction that will exclude the
combination of the alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of
the alternatives standing alone.
Same; Same; The range of permutation is not left to the

pleader’s liking, but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the
allegations which may warrant that a verification be based purely
on personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records or on both
sources.—The range of permutation is not left to the pleader’s
liking, but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the
allegations which may warrant that a verification be based either
purely on personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, or
on both sources.
Same; Same; Verification is not an empty ritual or a

meaningless formality—its import must never be sacrificed in the
name of mere expedience or sheer caprice—for what is at stake is
the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in
good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.—
Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its
import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience
or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001611e5b21692a11ee04003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the

allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are
true and correct and not merely speculative. This Court has
strictly been enforcing the requirement
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
503
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 503
of verification and certification and enunciating that obedience to

the requirements of procedural rules is needed if fair results are
to be expected therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules cannot just
be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.
While the requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, it does not
make it less a rule. A relaxed application of the rule can only be
justified by the attending circumstances of the case.
Same; The Rules, however, require that the petition must be

accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of
the judgments or final order of both lower courts, certified correct
by the clerk of court.—The Rules, however, require that the
petition must “be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original
or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts,
certified correct by the clerk of court.”
Remedial Law; Demurrer to Evidence; When a demurrer to

evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is submitted
for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the
accused is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.—
When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the
whole case is submitted for judgment on the basis of the evidence
for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have waived the
right to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is called
upon to decide the case including its civil aspect, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has
been waived or reserved.
Criminal Procedure; Actions; If the filing of a separate civil

action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or the
enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should,

in case of conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by
the wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by
the offended party, if there is any.—If the filing of a separate civil
action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or the
enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should,
in case of conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by
the wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by
the offended party, if there is any.
Jurisdictions; Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject

matter and over the person of the accused, and the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily
exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to
resolve.—Where
504
a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the
person of the accused, and the crime was committed within its
territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction
over all issues that the law requires it to resolve.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jose F. Manacop for petitioner.
Benjamin Paggao for respondent.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Petitioner, Hun Hyung Park, assails the1

Court of Appeals
(CA) 2 Resolutions dated May 20, 2004 and September 28,
2004 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28344 dismissing his petition and
denying reconsideration
3
thereof, respectively.
In an Information dated August 31, 2000, respondent,
Eung Won Choi, was charged for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing
Checks Law, for issuing on June 28, 1999 Philippine
National Bank Check No. 0077133 postdated August 28,
1999 in the amount of P1,875,000 which was dishonored for
having been drawn against insufficient funds.
Upon arraignment, respondent, with the assistance of

counsel, pleaded “not guilty” to the offense charged.
Following the pre-trial conference, the prosecution
presented its evidence-in-chief.
_______________
1 CA Rollo, pp. 113-114, penned by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo,

with the concurrence of Justice Marina L. Buzon and Justice Noel G.
Tijam.
2 Id., at pp. 172-173, penned by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, with
the concurrence of Justice Marina L. Buzon and Justice Monina Arevalo-
Zeñarosa.
3 Rollo, p. 86.
505
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 505

After the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed a

Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence to
which he attached his Demurrer, asserting that the
prosecution failed to prove that he received the notice of
dishonor, hence, the presumption of the element 4
of
knowledge of5 insufficiency of funds did not arise.
By Order of February 27, 2003, the Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC) of Makati, Branch 65 granted the Demurrer
and dismissed the case. The 6
prosecution’s Motion for
Reconsideration was denied. 7
Petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the case to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, contending that the
dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil
aspect.
By Decision of September 11, 2003, Branch 60 of the
RTC held that while the evidence presented was
insufficient to prove respondent’s criminal liability, it did
not altogether extinguish his civil liability. It accordingly
granted the appeal of petitioner and ordered respondent8
to
pay him the amount of P1,875,000 with legal interest.
Upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, however,
the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the remand of
the case to the MeTC “for further proceedings, so that the
defendant [respondent herein] 9may adduce evidence on the
civil aspect of the case.” Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the remand of the case having been
denied, he elevated the case to
_______________
4 Records, pp. 234-244, citing Ting v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 481;
344 SCRA 551 (2000).
5 Rollo, p. 245.
6 Id., at p. 87.
7 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-1836. Petitioner amended the
Notice of Appeal on June 2, 2003, after the case had already been
docketed, to point out that he is appealing the order of dismissal only
insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned (vide Records, pp. 283,
288, 290, 422).
8 Rollo, pp. 113-117.
9 Id., at pp. 143-146.
506

the CA which, by the assailed resolutions, dismissed his

petition for the following reasons:
“1. The verification and certification of non-forum

shopping attached to the petition does not fully
comply with Section 4, as amended by A.M. No. 00-
2-10-SC, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Court, because it
does not give the assurance that the allegations of
the petition are true and correct based on authentic
records.
2. The petition is not accompanied by copies of certain
pleadings and other material portions of the record,
(i.e., motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence,
demurrer to evidence and the opposition thereto,
and the Municipal [sic] Trial Court’s Order
dismissing Criminal Case No. 294690) as would
support the allegations of the petition (Sec. 2, Rule
42, ibid.).
3. The Decision dated September 11, 2003 of the
Regional Trial Court attached to the petition is an
uncertified and illegible mere machine copy of the
original (Sec. 2, Rule 42, ibid.).
4. Petitioners failed to implead the People of 10the
Philippines as party-respondent in the petition.”
In his present petition, petitioner assails the above-stated

reasons of the appellate court in dismissing his petition.
The manner of verification for pleadings which are
required to be verified, such as a petition for review before
11
11
the CA of an appellate judgment of the RTC, is prescribed
by Section 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:
“Sec. 4. Verification.—Except when otherwise specifically required

by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct
of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification
based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge,
information
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 162-163.

11 RULES OF COURT, Rule 42, Sec. 1.
507
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 507

and belief,” or lacks12 a proper verification shall be treated as an

unsigned pleading.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner argues that the word “or” is a disjunctive term

signifying disassociation and independence, hence, he chose
to affirm in his petition he filed before the court a quo that
its contents13 are “true and correct of my own personal
knowledge,” and not on the basis of authentic documents.
On the other hand, respondent counters that the word
“or” may be interpreted in a conjunctive sense and
construed to mean as “and,” or vice versa, when the context
of the law so warrants.
A reading of the above-quoted Section 4 of Rule 7
indicates that a pleading may be verified under either of
the two given modes or under both. The veracity of the
allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either
one’s own personal knowledge or on authentic records, or
both, as warranted. The use of the preposition “or” connotes
that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for
verification and, needless to state,
14
the concurrence of both
sources is more than sufficient. Bearing both a disjunctive
and conjunctive sense, this parallel legal signification
avoids a construction that will exclude the combination of
the alternatives or bar the 15
efficacy of any one of the
alternatives standing alone.
Contrary to petitioner’s position, the range of

permutation is not left to the pleader’s liking, but is
dependent on the surrounding nature of the allegations
which may warrant that a verification be based either
purely on personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic
records, or on both sources.
_______________
12 As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10 SC (2000).

13 Rollo, p. 64.
14 Vide Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, 387 Phil. 872, 881-882; 332 SCRA
126, 135 (2000).
15 Vide China Banking Corporation v. Members of the Board of
Trustees, Home Development Mutual Fund, 366 Phil. 913; 307 SCRA 443,
457 (1999).
508

As pointed out by respondent, “authentic records” as a

basis for verification bear significance in petitions wherein
the greater portions of the allegations are based on the
records of the proceedings in the court of origin and/or the
court a quo, and not solely on the personal knowledge of
the petitioner. To illustrate, petitioner himself could not
have affirmed, based on his personal knowledge, 16
the
truthfulness of the statement in his petition before the CA
that at the pre-trial conference respondent admitted having
received the letter of demand, because17 he (petitioner) was
not present during the conference. Hence, petitioner
needed to rely on the records to confirm its veracity.
Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless
formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name
of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake 18
is
the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to
secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading
have been made in good 19
faith, or are true and correct and
not merely speculative.
This Court has strictly been enforcing the requirement
of verification and certification and enunciating that
obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed
if fair results are to be expected therefrom. Utter disregard
of the rules cannot just be rationalized
20
by harking on the
policy of liberal construction. While the requirement is not
jurisdictional in nature, it does not make it less a rule. A

relaxed
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 53.
17 Records, p. 69; TSN, August 1, 2001.
18 Vide Grogun, Incorporated v. National Power Corp., 458 Phil. 217,
230-231; 411 SCRA 357, 367 (2003) for a definition of “verification.”
19 Clavecilla v. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA
623, 631.
20 Id., at p. 623.
509
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 509

application of the rule can only21 be justified by the

attending circumstances of the case.
To sustain petitioner’s explanation that the basis of
verification is a matter of simple preference would
trivialize the rationale and diminish the resoluteness of the
rule. It would play on predilection and pay no heed in
providing enough assurance of the correctness of the
allegations.
On the second reason of the CA in dismissing the
petition—that the petition was not accompanied by copies
of certain pleadings and other material portions of the
record as would support the allegations of the petition (i.e.,
Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence, Demurrer
to Evidence and the Opposition thereto, and the MeTC
February 27, 2003 Order dismissing the case)—petitioner
contends that these documents are immaterial to his
appeal.
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, however, the
materiality of those documents is very apparent since the
civil aspect of the case, from which he is appealing, was
likewise dismissed by the trial court on account of the same
Demurrer.
Petitioner, nonetheless, posits that he subsequently
submitted to the CA copies of the enumerated documents,
save for the MeTC February 27, 2003 Order, as
attachments to his Motion for Reconsideration.
The Rules, however, require that the petition must “be
accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true
copies of the judgments or final orders22 of both lower courts,
certified correct by the clerk of court.”
A perusal of the petition filed before the CA shows that

the only duplicate original or certified true copies attached
as annexes thereto are the January 14, 2004 RTC Order
granting respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and the
March 29, 2004 RTC Order denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsid-
_______________
21 Cf. Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981; 352 SCRA 334
(2001).
22 RULES OF COURT, Rule 42, Sec. 2 (d).
510

eration. The copy of the September 11, 2003 RTC Decision,

which petitioner prayed to be reinstated, is not a certified
true copy and is not even legible. Petitioner later
recompensed though by appending to his Motion for
Reconsideration a duplicate original copy.
While petitioner averred before the CA in his Motion for
Reconsideration that the February 27, 2003 MeTC Order
was already attached to his petition as Annex “G,” Annex
“G” bares a replicate copy of a different order, however. It
was to this Court that petitioner belatedly submitted an
uncertified true copy of the said MeTC Order as an annex
to his Reply to respondent’s Comment.
This Court in fact observes that the copy of the other
MeTC Order, that dated May 5, 2003, which petitioner
attached to his petition before the CA is similarly
uncertified as true.
Since both Orders of the MeTC were adverse to him
even with respect to the civil aspect of the case, petitioner
23
was mandated to submit them in the required form.
In fine, petitioner fell short in his compliance with
Section 2 (d) of Rule 42, the mandatory tenor24
of which is
discernible thereunder and is well settled. He has not,
however, advanced any strong compelling reasons to
warrant a relaxation of the Rules, hence, his petition before
the CA was correctly dismissed.
“Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication

of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide
strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances,
allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this we stress,

was never
_______________
23 Cf. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 157; 275 SCRA 167 (1997),
which ruled that a petitioner is not required to attach to the petition
before the Court of Appeals a certified true copy—but only a true or plain
copy—of the MeTC Decision since petitioner is not appealing therefrom as
it was rendered in her favor.
24 Atillo v. Bombay, 404 Phil. 179, 188; 351 SCRA 361, 368 (2001).
511
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 511

intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules

with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application
of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable
causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a
game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure 25
to insure
an orderly and speedy administration of justice.” (Emphasis
supplied)
As to the third reason for the appellate court’s dismissal of

his petition—failure to implead the People of the
Philippines as a party in the petition—indeed, as petitioner
contends, the same is of no moment, he having appealed
only the civil aspect of the case. Passing on the dual
purpose of a criminal action, this Court ruled:
“Unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the
right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action, there are two actions involved in a criminal
case. The first is the criminal action for the punishment of the
offender. The parties are the People of the Philippines as the
plaintiff and the accused. In a criminal action, the private
complainant is merely a witness for the State on the criminal
aspect of the action. The second is the civil action arising from the
delict. The private complainant is the plaintiff and the accused is
the defendant. There is a 26merger of the trial of the two cases to
avoid multiplicity of suits.” (Italics supplied)
27
It bears recalling that the MeTC acquitted respondent. As
a rule, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
_______________
25 Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780, 784; 258 SCRA 159, 163
(1996).
26 Salazar v. People, 458 Phil. 504, 514; 411 SCRA 598, 605 (2003).
27 From the MeTC’s order, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
instituted a special civil action for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court
of Makati City, Branch 147. Docketed as SCA No. 03-712 entitled “People
of the Philippines v. Hon Rommel O. Baybay and Eung Won Choi,” the
petition was dismissed on October 28, 2003
512

executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal

because of the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy.
Either the offended party or the accused may, however,
appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal
of the accused. The public prosecutor has generally no
interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision
acquitting the accused. The acquittal ends his work. The
case is terminated as far as he is concerned. The real
parties in interest in the civil aspect
28
of a decision are the
offended party and the accused.
Technicality aside, the petition is devoid of merit.
When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of
court, the whole case is submitted for judgment on the
basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the accused 29
is
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. At
that juncture, the
_______________
for being improper and for lack of merit, which order eventually
attained finality (vide Records, pp. 335-341, 564-565, 676).
28 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 641, 653; 388 SCRA 72, 82 (2002).
29 RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 23 reads: Demurrer to Evidence.
—After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving
the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused 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. When the demurrer to
evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to
present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the
evidence for the prosecution.
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall
specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a nonextendible
period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution
may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from
its receipt.
513
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 513

court is called upon to decide the case including its civil

aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil liability30
by a
separate civil action has been waived or reserved.
If the filing of a separate civil action has not been
reserved or priorly instituted or the enforcement of civil
liability is not waived, the trial court should, in case of
conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the
wrongful act or omission to be recovered 31
from the accused
by the offended party, if there is any.
For, in case of acquittal, the accused may still be
adjudged civilly liable. The extinction of the penal action
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action
where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court
declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and
(c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is
not based32 upon the crime of which the accused was
acquitted.
The civil action based on delict may, however, be deemed
extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission
33
from which the
civil liability may arise did not exist.
_______________
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 to file demurrer to evidence or
the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari
before judgment.
30 In a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, no
reservation to file the civil action separately shall be allowed. See RULES
OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1, par. (b).
31 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 120, Sec. 2.

32 Sanchez v. Far East Bank & Trust Co ., G.R. No. 155309, November
15, 2005, 475 SCRA 97.
33 Vide RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 2, last par.
514

In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,

the accused may adduce countervailing
34
evidence if the
court denies the demurrer. Such denial bears no
distinction as to the two aspects of the case because there is
a disparity of evidentiary value between the quanta of
evidence in such aspects of the case. In other words, a court
may not deny the demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at
the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil aspect, for
if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient to prove
the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the same evidence
is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liability by
mere preponderance of evidence.
On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented is
insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not
follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a
preponderance of evidence. For if the court grants the
demurrer, proceedings on the civil aspect of the case
generally proceeds. The only recognized instance when an
acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the
civil aspect is when there is a finding that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist. Absent such determination, trial as to the civil aspect
of the case must35 perforce continue. Thus this Court, in
Salazar v. People, held:
“If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court,

the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of
the case unless the court also declares that the act36 or omission
from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.”
In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and

dismissed the case without any finding that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist.
_______________
34 Supra note 29.
35 458 Phil. 504; 411 SCRA 598 (2003).

36 Id., at p. 517; p. 607.
515
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 515

Respondent did not assail the RTC order of remand. He

thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand.
Indicatively, respondent stands by his defense that he
merely borrowed P1,500,000 with the remainder
representing the interest, and that he already made a
partial payment of P1,590,000. Petitioner counters,
however, that the payments
37
made by respondent pertained
to other transactions. Given these conflicting claims which
are factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest
opportunity for the parties to ventilate, and for the trial
court to resolve the same.
Petitioner finally posits that respondent waived his right
to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case (1) when
the grant of the demurrer 38
was reversed on appeal, citing
Section 1 of Rule 33, and (2) when respondent orally
opposed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pleading
that proceedings with respect to the civil aspect of the case
continue.
Petitioner’s position is tenuous.
Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is incorrect.
Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and
over the person of the accused, and the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court
necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the
law requires it to resolve.
One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil
liability of the accused arising from the crime, the
governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the
Rules of Civil Procedure
_______________
37 Rollo, pp. 72-73.

38 “After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence,
the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts
and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is
denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is
granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.”
516

which pertains to a civil action arising

39
from the initiatory
pleading that gives rise to the suit.
As for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to respondent, it
cannot be determined with certainty from the records the
nature of the alleged oral objections of respondent to
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the grant of the
demurrer to evidence. Any waiver of the right to present
evidence must be positively demonstrated. Any ambiguity
40
in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon, hence,
courts
41
must indulge every reasonable presumption against
it.
This Court therefore upholds respondent’s right to
present evidence as reserved by his filing of leave of court
to file the demurrer.
WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing
discussions, DENIED.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin,
Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65 which
is DIRECTED to forthwith set Criminal Case No. 294690
for further proceedings only for the purpose of receiving
evidence on the civil aspect of the case.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Tinga and

Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition denied, case remanded to court of origin.
Notes.—Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to

expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other
matters pending in court. (Diaz vs. Mesias, Jr., 424 SCRA
747 [2004])
_______________
39 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28 at p. 654; pp. 82-83.

40 Vide People v. Flores, 336 Phil. 58; 269 SCRA 62 (1997).
41 Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., 350 Phil. 700, 720; 287 SCRA 245, 263
(1998).
517
VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 517

Rayos vs. Hernandez
If a demurrer to evidence is granted but on appeal the

order of dismissal is reversed, the movant shall be deemed
to have waived the right to present evidence. Movant who
presents a demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence retains the
right to present their own evidence, if the trial court
disagrees with them. (Permanent Savings and Loan Bank
vs. Velarde, 439 SCRA 1 [2004])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi OG

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi OG

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

HUN HYUNG PARK, petitioner, vs. EUNG WON CHOI,

Pleadings and Practice; Verification; The veracity of the

Same; Same; The range of permutation is not left to the

Same; Same; Verification is not an empty ritual or a

attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 503

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

of verification and certification and enunciating that obedience to

Same; The Rules, however, require that the petition must be

Remedial Law; Demurrer to Evidence; When a demurrer to

Criminal Procedure; Actions; If the filing of a separate civil

enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should,

Jurisdictions; Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Petitioner, Hun Hyung Park, assails the1

Upon arraignment, respondent, with the assistance of

1 CA Rollo, pp. 113-114, penned by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo,

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 505

After the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed a

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the CA which, by the assailed resolutions, dismissed his

“1. The verification and certification of non-forum

In his present petition, petitioner assails the above-stated

“Sec. 4. Verification.—Except when otherwise specifically required

10 Id., at pp. 162-163.

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 507

and belief,” or lacks12 a proper verification shall be treated as an

Petitioner argues that the word “or” is a disjunctive term

Contrary to petitioner’s position, the range of

12 As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10 SC (2000).

508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As pointed out by respondent, “authentic records” as a

jurisdictional in nature, it does not make it less a rule. A

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 509

application of the rule can only21 be justified by the

A perusal of the petition filed before the CA shows that

510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

eration. The copy of the September 11, 2003 RTC Decision,

“Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication

allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this we stress,

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 511

intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules

As to the third reason for the appellate court’s dismissal of

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 513

court is called upon to decide the case including its civil

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to

31 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 120, Sec. 2.

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,

“If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court,

In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and

34 Supra note 29.

35 458 Phil. 504; 411 SCRA 598 (2003).

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 515

Respondent did not assail the RTC order of remand. He

37 Rollo, pp. 72-73.

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED