GR 86025; (November, 1989) (Digest)
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 evidence, with complainant Virgilio Quinto as its first witness. 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. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. In his subsequent Order, the Judge justified the dismissal by citing Chemistry Reports indicating Quinto tested positive for nitrates while Mejia tested negative, concluding that Quinto, not the accused, possessed the firearm. The prosecution filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing it was denied due process as it had not yet rested its case.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case for insufficiency of evidence after the testimony of only one prosecution witness and 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 anchored on procedural rules and the proper evaluation of evidence. Under Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence may only be filed after the prosecution has rested its case. The defense motion was therefore patently premature, as the prosecution was still in the process of presenting its evidence. 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 proof.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Chemistry Reports relied upon by the Judge were hearsay. They had not been 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 Judge’s act of considering these unoffered reports and prematurely dismissing the case constituted a capricious and blatant disregard of established procedural law, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the dismissal was void, and double jeopardy did not attach. The case was ordered reinstated and re-raffled to another judge to avoid any suspicion of partiality.