G.R. No. 86025 November 28, 1989
RODOLFO R. AQUINO and SEVERINO B. BUGARIN, in their capacity as PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR and ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, respectively of Pangasinan, petitioners, vs. HON. DEODORO J. SISON, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Dagupan City and RODOLFO MEJIA alias “RUDING”, respondents.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging private respondent Rodolfo Mejia with Illegal Possession of Firearm. After his arraignment and plea of not guilty, the prosecution began presenting its evidence, starting with complainant Virgilio Quinto. During cross-examination, Quinto admitted that he and the accused underwent paraffin tests. Immediately after Quinto’s testimony, the defense verbally moved to dismiss the case for insufficiency of evidence.
The respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the case in an Order dated October 14, 1988, despite the prosecution’s vigorous objection. The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Judge denied in a subsequent Order dated November 21, 1988. In this denial, the Judge explicitly relied on Chemistry Reports (Exhibits 1 and 2) from an NBI Forensic Chemist, which indicated Quinto tested positive for nitrates while Mejia tested negative, to conclude that Quinto, not the accused, possessed the firearm. The Judge also expressed concern that continuing the trial would be futile and might place the accused in double jeopardy.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case for insufficiency of evidence before the prosecution had rested its case.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the respondent Judge’s orders. The legal logic is clear and procedural. Under Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence can only be filed after the prosecution has formally rested its case. Here, the defense motion was grossly premature, as only one witness had been presented and the prosecution had neither finished presenting evidence nor declared that it was resting its case. By dismissing the case at that stage, the Judge deprived the prosecution of its right to due process and to complete the presentation of its evidence.
Furthermore, the Judge’s reliance on the Chemistry Reports was fundamentally erroneous. These reports were hearsay evidence, as they were not formally offered in evidence, nor were they identified and testified to by the forensic chemist who prepared them. A court can only base its findings on evidence formally offered by the parties. The dismissal, being capricious and in blatant disregard of basic procedural rules, constituted grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, double jeopardy does not attach to an invalid dismissal. The Court ordered the case reinstated and re-raffled to another sala to avoid any suspicion of partiality.