Velancia v.

Sandiganbayan who is disqualified to be appointed within a period of 1 year

Topic: Demurrer to Evidence; Purpose & Duty of Courts after having lost in May 1992 local election for councilor
 On Mar 26, 2003 the Sandiganbayan directed the parties to
Issue: sign the joint stipulation of facts
(1) Was petitioner’s motion for leave to file for Demurrer to  Valencia did not sign the Joint Stipulation of Facts (only
Evidence Premature? (yes) prosecutor, and petitioner’s counsel signed)
(2) May the prosecution be allowed to present evidence after it  On Jan 12, 2004 Prosecutor rested the case based on the
orally manifested its intention to rest its case? (yes) Joint Stipulation of Facts and waived presentation of
(3) Was petitioner denied his right to speedy trial? (no) testimonial and documentary evidence for prosecution
 On Jan 19, 2004 Valencia filed a motion for leave to file
Facts: Demurrer to Evidence because the prosecution failed to
 Valencia then governor of Oriental Mindoro was charged present, mark, or offer evidence that would substantiate
before the Sandiganbayan with violation of sec3 (e) of RA the charge against him.
3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt Practices act)  Prosecution filed an opposition alleging that petitioners
1. Mr. Rodolfo G. Valencia, had been the Governor motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence is premature
of the Province of Oriental Mindoro, for having won because the prosecution has yet to formally offer the Joint
in the gobernatorial race in the May 1992 local and Stipulation of Facts
provincial election;
2. During the 1992 election, Mr. Cresente Umbao Held:
also ran for the position of councilor in the (1)
Municipality of Pola, Oriental Mindoro but he lost;  Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, provides:
3. On October 17, 1992, Councilor Antonio SEC. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests
Mercene, Jr. of Pola, Oriental, Mindoro died thus its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of
creating a permanent vacancy in the membership insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving
position of Sanguniang Bayan of Pola, Oriental the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon
Mindoro. demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without
4. On December 1, 1992 then Governor Rodolfo G. leave of court.
Valencia of Oriental, Mindoro, appointed Cresente  A demurrer to evidence tests the sufficiency or insufficiency
Umbao to the position of a councilor in the of the prosecution’s evidence. As such, a demurrer to
Municipal Council of Pola, Oriental Mindoro on the evidence or a motion for leave to file the same must be filed
vacancy left by the death of Councilor Mercene. after the prosecution rests its case. But before an evidence
 Prosecution contends that this appointment is in violation may be admitted, the rules require that the same be
of RA 3019 as it gives unwarranted benefits to Mr. Umbao formally offered, otherwise, it cannot be considered by the
court. A prior formal offer of evidence concludes the case
 for the prosecution and determines the timeliness of the Stipulation of Facts prove that the prosecution did not
filing of a demurrer to evidence. formally rest or conclude the presentation of its evidence,
 Aquino v. Sison: The motion to dismiss for insufficiency of rendering petitioners motion for leave to file demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused after the conclusion of the evidence, premature.
cross-examination of the witness for the prosecution, is
premature because the latter is still in the process of (2)
presenting evidence. The chemistry report relied upon by the  Petitioner cannot claim denial of due process because he
court in granting the motion to dismiss was disregarded will have the opportunity to contest the evidence adduced
because it was not properly identified or formally offered as against him and to prove his defenses after the prosecution
evidence. Verily, until such time that the prosecution closed concludes the presentation of its evidence.
its evidence, the defense cannot be considered to have  The order of the trial court granting the reception of
seasonably filed a demurrer to evidence or a motion for additional evidence for the prosecution is not technically a
leave to file the same. reopening of the case inasmuch as the latter had yet to
 Petitioner’s motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence is formally rest its case. A motion to reopen presupposes that
premature because the prosecution had yet to formally rest either or both parties have formally offered and closed their
its case. evidence.
 When the motion was filed on January 19, 2004, the latter (3)
had not yet marked nor formally offered the Joint  In the same vein, the right to speedy trial cannot be
Stipulation of Facts as evidence. successfully invoked where to sustain the same would result
 It is inconsequential that petitioner received by mail on in a clear denial of due process to the prosecution. While
January 27, 2004, a motion and formal offer of evidence justice is administered with dispatch, the essential
dated January 20, 2004 from Prosecutor Salindong, ingredient is orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It
because, as aptly observed by the Office of the cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system
Ombudsman, the records of the Sandiganbayan bear no where justice is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. It is
such motion or formal offer of evidence filed by the consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It
prosecution. secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the
 The motion and formal offer found in the records are those rights of public justice. Also, it must be borne in mind that
attached as Annex B to petitioners Manifestation with the rights given to the accused by the Constitution and the
Motion for Reconsideration and not copies filed by the Rules of Court are shields, not weapons; hence, courts are
prosecution. Under Section 12, Rule 13 of the Rules of to give meaning to that intent.
Court, the filing of a pleading or paper shall be proved by its
existence in the case records.
 The absence of the motion to rest the case in the records of
the Sandiganbayan and the failure to offer the Joint