Demurrer to Evidence Denial Not Grave Abuse: Resoso v. Sandiganbayan

The denial of a demurrer to evidence is a critical moment in any criminal trial. It tells the accused that the prosecution’s evidence is enough to proceed, and the defense must now present its own case. But what happens when the accused believes the trial court got it wrong? Can that denial be immediately challenged before the Supreme Court?

In Resoso v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 124140, November 25, 1999), the Court settled this question: a denial of a demurrer to evidence, even if allegedly erroneous, is not a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The proper remedy is to continue the trial and appeal an unfavorable verdict.

The Facts of the Case

Bernardo Resoso was the Executive Officer of the National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC). He was charged with seven counts of falsification of public documents under Article 171, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that he altered Veterinary Quarantine Clearances — changing the quality, quantity, and country of origin of imported meat products — without authority.

Resoso pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested its case, he filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His main defense was good faith: he claimed the alterations were authorized by then Undersecretary Conrado Gozon and followed the prevailing practice in the NMIC.

The Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer, ruling that good faith was “not yet apparent” at that stage. Resoso’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then went to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, arguing that the denial constituted grave abuse of discretion.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Resoso’s demurrer to evidence, such that the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition should issue.

The Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are not available to correct mistakes in the judge’s findings and conclusions or to cure erroneous conclusions of law and fact. Even if there were an error of judgment in denying the demurrer, that would not amount to grave abuse of discretion.

The Court explained that when an adverse interlocutory order is rendered — like the denial of a demurrer — the remedy is not to resort to certiorari or prohibition. Instead, the accused must continue with the case in due course and, if an unfavorable verdict is handed down, take an appeal in the manner authorized by law.

The Court also noted that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are generally conclusive upon the Supreme Court, unless certain exceptions apply — such as when the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, the inference is manifestly mistaken, there is grave abuse of discretion, or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. None of these exceptions were present in Resoso’s case.

Why This Matters

This case clarifies an important procedural point: the denial of a demurrer to evidence is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. It cannot be attacked through certiorari merely because the accused disagrees with the trial court’s assessment of the evidence. The extraordinary writs are reserved for cases of grave abuse of discretion — not for ordinary errors of judgment.

Practical Takeaways

• A denied demurrer to evidence is not a dead end. The accused must present his or her defense and, if convicted, appeal the final judgment.
• Certiorari is a limited remedy. It corrects grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment or mistakes in evaluating evidence.
• Good faith is a factual defense. In falsification cases, good faith must be clearly proven; it is not automatically established by testimony that authority was given, especially when that authority is unwritten or disputed.
• Interlocutory orders must be challenged through the proper channel. The rules of procedure exist to ensure orderly litigation; bypassing them through extraordinary writs will not succeed.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.