G.R. No. 159751 ; December 6, 2006
Gaudencio E. Fernando and Rudy Estorninos, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, respondent.

FACTS

Acting on reports of pornographic material sales, police surveilled the Gaudencio E. Fernando Music Fair. A search warrant was issued, and on May 5, 1999, police officers served it on petitioner Rudy Estorninos, who introduced himself as the store attendant. The search yielded twenty-five VHS tapes and ten magazines deemed pornographic. Petitioners Fernando and Estorninos, along with Warren Tingchuy, were charged with violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for publicly exhibiting indecent shows by selling and exhibiting obscene materials.
Upon arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Regional Trial Court denied the demurrer. Petitioners then waived their right to present evidence and submitted the case for decision. The trial court acquitted Tingchuy but convicted Fernando and Estorninos, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction despite their claims that Fernando was absent during the raid and Estorninos was not engaged in illegal activity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the consequences of waiving the right to present evidence after a demurrer to evidence is denied. A demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. When it is denied, the accused must proceed with presenting defense evidence. By waiving this right, petitioners effectively submitted the case for judgment based solely on the prosecution’s evidence, which the trial court found sufficient.
For Fernando, ownership of the establishment selling obscene materials is sufficient for liability under Article 201(2)(a). The prosecution presented a mayor’s permit and testimony indicating his ownership, which he did not rebut. His absence during the raid is immaterial; the law holds owners/operators liable for the sale of obscene literature from their establishments. For Estorninos, prosecution witnesses positively identified him as the store attendant present during the service of the warrant and the discovery of the materials. His involvement in the operation of the establishment where obscene items were found and seized supports his conviction. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s assessment that the prosecution evidence, uncontroverted by any defense, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.