G.R. No. 186001 ; October 2, 2009
ANTONIO CABADOR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio Cabador was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. After five years of intermittent trial, the prosecution presented only five witnesses. On February 13, 2006, the RTC terminated the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and ordered the formal offer of its documentary evidence within 15 days. The prosecution requested and was granted three extensions, the last expiring on July 28, 2006, but still failed to make the formal offer. Consequently, on August 1, 2006, Cabador filed a motion to dismiss, invoking his constitutional right to a speedy trial and arguing that, per Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court could not consider any evidence not formally offered.
Unknown to Cabador, the prosecution had filed a motion for another extension on July 28, 2006, and subsequently submitted its formal offer of evidence also on August 1, 2006. The RTC, in an Order dated August 31, 2006, treated Cabador’s motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court. Consequently, the court ruled that he waived his right to present evidence and deemed the case submitted for decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC correctly treated petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court, resulting in a waiver of his right to present evidence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between a motion to dismiss and a demurrer to evidence. Following Enojasc, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, the Court examines the allegations in good faith, the stage of the proceedings, and the primary objective of the filing. Cabador’s motion did not assail the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence—the core function of a demurrer. Instead, it primarily invoked the denial of his right to a speedy trial due to the prosecution’s protracted delays and failure to formally offer evidence within multiple extensions. His argument that, absent a formal offer, the court had no evidence to consider was a procedural point supporting his claim for dismissal due to inordinate delay, not a challenge to the evidence’s weight or adequacy. Since the motion was not a demurrer, the RTC erred in applying the rule that filing a demurrer without leave constitutes a waiver of the right to present evidence. The case was remanded to the RTC to resolve the motion to dismiss based on the circumstances of the trial delay.