21/02/2026
ACQUITTAL VIA DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IS FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE—SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court (SC) held that a judgment of acquittal via demurrer to evidence is final, unappealable, and immediately executory, noting that the State cannot appeal the same as it would violate the right of the accused against double jeopardy.
In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC's Third Division has affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granting the demurrer to evidence in favor of Dr. Jovith Royales, effectively dismissing the falsification of private document charges filed against him by Marilao Medical and Diagnostic Inc.
Dr. Royales is the owner of Best Care, a clinic not authorized to issue Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) tests. The Marilao Medical and Diagnostic Inc. alleged that Dr. Royales falsely used its name to process and issue RT-PCR test results.
After the prosecution presented its evidence, Dr. Royales filed a demurrer to evidence. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted the demurrer and acquitted Dr. Royales. The MeTC found that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the alleged falsified documents or prove that Dr. Royales ordered the falsification. While a scheme may have existed, there was no evidence directly linking Dr. Royales to it.
Marilao Medical filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) assailing the acquittal. Notably, Marilao Medical obtained the conformity of the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) for this petition, but not the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The RTC dismissed the petition. It ruled that the OCP’s conformity was insufficient because the criminal aspect of the case must be prosecuted on behalf of the State, and the RTC believed the OSG was the proper party to represent the State in such actions. This prompted Mqrilap Medical to file a direct recourse before the Supreme Court.
In affirming the MeTC’s acquittal of Dr. Royales, it noted that a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable to protect the accused against double jeopardy. The only exception is a Rule 65 petition showing grave abuse of discretion—meaning the court acted in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner amounting to a denial of due process.
It noted that the MeTC correctly found that the prosecution failed to prove Dr. Royales' authorship or possession of the falsified documents. Being an officer/owner of the company (Best Care) does not create a presumption of authorship of falsified documents without evidence of actual possession or specific orders to falsify.
The SC also rejected Marilao Medical's assertion invoking presumption of authorship, which allows Dr. Royales, being the owner of Best Care, to possess and benefit from the documents. It noted that the presumption of authorship against a person in possession of a falsified document does not automatically apply to an officer of a company simply because the company produced the document.
Meanwhile, as to the procedural aspect, the SC held that the RTC erred in denying due course to the petition for certiorari on the ground that it bore the conformity of the City Prosecutor instead of the Solicitor General. It underscored that when a case is filed or pending in the RTC, including a Rule 65 petition, it is the provincial or city prosecutor, not the Solicitor General, who represents the state.
"Since Marilao Medical’s petition was filed before the RTC and had the express conformity of the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP), the requirement for state representation was satisfied," the Supreme Court said.
