ANTONIO CABADOR V PEOPLE
GR NO 186001 | OCTOBER 2, 2009 | ABAD, J.
DIGEST BY: MILLER, A.
Recit-Ready Summary: Petitioner Cabador filed a Motion to Dismiss his case, complaining of a turtle-paced
proceeding in the case since his arrest and detention in 2001 and invoking his right to a speedy trial. Further,
he claimed that in the circumstances, the trial court could not consider any evidence against him that had not
been formally offered. He also pointed out that the prosecution witnesses did not have knowledge of his
alleged part in the crime charged. The RTC issued an Order treating petitioner Cabador’s August 1, 2006
Motion to Dismiss as a Demurrer to Evidence. And, since he filed his motion without leave of court, the RTC
declared him to have waived his right to present evidence in his defense. The trial court deemed the case
submitted for decision insofar as he was concerned.
FACTS: June 23, 2000 - The public prosecutor accused petitioner Antonio Cabador before the RTC of Quezon
City of murdering, in conspiracy with others, Atty. Jun N. Valerio. On February 13, 2006, after presenting only
five witnesses over five years of intermittent trial, the RTC declared at an end the prosecution’s presentation
of evidence and required the prosecution to make a written or formal offer of its documentary evidence
within 15 days from notice. But the public prosecutor asked for three extensions of time, the last of which was
to end on July 28, 2006. Still, the prosecution did not make the required written offer.
August 1, 2006 - Petitioner Cabador filed a motion to dismiss the case, complaining of a turtle-paced
proceeding in the case since his arrest and detention in 2001 and invoking his right to a speedy trial.
Further, he claimed that in the circumstances, the trial court could not consider any evidence against him that
had not been formally offered. He also pointed out that the prosecution witnesses did not have knowledge of
his alleged part in the crime charged.
Unknown to petitioner Cabador, however, four days earlier or on July 28, 2006 the prosecution asked the RTC
for another extension of the period for its formal offer, which offer it eventually made on August 1, 2006, the
day Cabador filed his motion to dismiss.
August 31, 2006 - The RTC issued an Order treating petitioner Cabador’s August 1, 2006 motion to dismiss
as a demurrer to evidence. And, since he filed his motion without leave of court, the RTC declared him to
have waived his right to present evidence in his defense. The trial court deemed the case submitted for
decision insofar as he was concerned.
Cabador filed a motion for reconsideration of this Order but the RTC denied it on February 19, 2007. Cabador
questioned the RTC’s actions before the CA but on August 4, 2008 the latter denied his petition and affirmed
the lower court’s actions. CA denied his MR.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss before the trial court was in fact a demurrer
to evidence filed without leave of court, with the result that he effectively waived his right to present
evidence in his defense and submitted the case for decision insofar as he was concerned.
RULING: NO. The Court held in Enojas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections that, to determine whether the
pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must consider (1) the
allegations in it made in good faith; (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed; and (3) the
primary objective of the party filing it. It can be seen petitioner Cabador took pains to point out in his
Motion To Dismiss how trial in the case had painfully dragged on for years. The gaps between proceedings
were long, with hearings often postponed because of the prosecutor’s absence. This was further
compounded, Cabador said, by the prosecution’s repeated motions for extension of time to file its formal offer
and its failure to file it within such time. Cabador then invoked in paragraph 13 above his right to speedy trial.
But the RTC and the CA simply chose to ignore these extensive averments and altogether treated Cabador’s
motion as a demurrer to evidence because of a few observations he made in paragraphs "11 (sic)" and 12
regarding the inadequacy of the evidence against him.
In criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the accused’s right to speedy
trial. This denial is characterized by unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delays without fault of the
accused, or by unjustified postponements that unreasonably prolonged the trial.
The fact is that Cabador did not even bother to do what is so fundamental in any demurrer. He did not state what
evidence the prosecution had presented against him to show in what respects such evidence failed to meet the
elements of the crime charged. His so-called "demurrer" did not touch on any particular testimony of even one
witness. He cited no documentary exhibit. Indeed, he could not because, he did not know that the prosecution
finally made its formal offer of exhibits on the same date he filed his motion to dismiss.
In sum, tested against the criteria laid down in Enojas, the Court finds that petitioner Cabador filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence. He cannot be
declared to have waived his right to present evidence in his defense.
