GR 151912; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151912 September 26, 2005
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES PEDRITO BERMOY and GLORIA BERMOY, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Savings Bank charged respondent spouses with Estafa through Falsification of a Public Document. The Information alleged they falsified a Transfer Certificate of Title to use as collateral for a ₱1,000,000.00 loan. During the pre-trial, the trial court’s Order stated the parties stipulated on the court’s jurisdiction and the identities of the accused. The prosecution later presented two witnesses who testified on the loan transaction but did not explicitly identify the respondents in court as the perpetrators. After the prosecution rested, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing a failure of identification.
The trial court granted the demurrer and acquitted the respondents. It ruled that the pre-trial stipulation on identity, as reflected in the court’s Order, was insufficient. The court held that the prosecution witnesses did not make a positive in-court identification of the respondents as the persons who committed the crime. The prosecution’s petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer to evidence and ordering the acquittal of the respondents.
RULING
No, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The grant of a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal; the constitutional right against double jeopardy immediately attaches. For an acquittal to be reviewed, it must be shown that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion, such as a whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court found no such abuse. The trial court’s conclusion was based on its evaluation that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused as the perpetrators. While the pre-trial Order noted a stipulation on identity, the minutes of the hearing contained no such notation, creating ambiguity. Crucially, the prosecution’s witnesses, during their testimonies, did not point to or identify the respondents in the courtroom as the individuals who falsified the document and obtained the loan. This failure of in-court identification left a critical element of the crime unproven. The trial court’s assessment of the evidence’s insufficiency was a legitimate exercise of its jurisdiction and cannot be overturned simply because a different conclusion might be reached. The acquittal is final and bars any further prosecution for the same offense.