Grave abuse of discretion defined; demurrer to evidence equivalent to judgment of acquittal - G.R. No. 196685

G.R. No. 196685

"x x x.

Grave Abuse of Discretion

as a Ground for Reversal of an Acquittal

Insisting that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion, the prayers in the Petitions in both the RTC and CA asked for the reversal of the respondents’ acquittal.



An order granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the case on the merits, and it amounts to an acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.18





It is settled that a judgment of acquittal cannot be recalled or withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case,19 nor can it be modified except to eliminate something which is civil or administrative in nature.20 One exception to the rule is when the prosecution is denied due process of law.21 Another exception is when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence.22 If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting Goodland’s prayer is not tantamount to putting Co and Chan in double jeopardy.



However, the present case is replete with evidence to prove that the CA was correct in denying Goodland’s certiorari on appeal. We emphasize that the Orders of the MeTC were affirmed by the RTC, and affirmed yet again by the CA. We find no grave abuse of discretion in the CA’s affirmation of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 332313.



We have explained “grave abuse of discretion” to mean thus:



An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility.23



The CA made its decision after its careful examination of the records of the case. The CA found that Guy signed the subject Real Estate Mortgage and was authorized by the Board of Directors to do so, and none of Goodland’s witnesses have personal knowledge of the circumstances of the discussions between Guy and Asia United Bank. Goodland, however, failed to prove that (1) the subject Real Estate Mortgage was in blank at the time it was submitted to Asia United Bank; (2) respondents filled-in the blanks in the Real Estate Mortgage; and (3) Guy did not appear before the notary public. It was with reason, therefore, that the CA declared that the evidence for Goodland failed miserably in meeting the quantum of proof required in criminal cases to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence. Grave abuse of discretion may not be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged misappreciation of evidence.

x x x."