The Court of Appeals (CA) has nullified the acquittal through a demurrer to evidence of an importer and a customs broker who were charged with unlawful importation in 2013 of plastic scraps which turned out to be hazardous wastes from Canada.

A demurrer to evidence is filed by an accused in a criminal case after the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence to seek the dismissal of the charge on the basis of alleged weakness of the evidence.

If the demurrer is allowed and granted by the court, the criminal charge is dismissed and the dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal.

Reversed by the CA were the decision and resolution issued by two branches of the Manila regional trial court (RTC) which granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Adelfa H. Eduardo, owner of Chronics Plastics, and Leonora M. Flores, customs broker.

Eduardo and Flores were charged by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) before the Department of Justice (DOJ) with violations of Sections 3601 and 3602 of The Toxic Substance and Hazardous Waster and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990, and violations of Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on falsification of documents.

The criminal charge arose from the importation of 50 container vans declared as “Plastic Scrap” but found to be household garbage, including used adult diapers, or infamously known as the “Canada Waste,” consigned to Chronics Plastics.   

After preliminary investigation, the DOJ filed cases against Eduardo and Flores before the Manila RTC. 

The now-retired RTC judge Paulino Gallegos granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused in a decision issued on June 20, 2023.

 Judge John Benedict Medina of Branch 47 denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution in a resolution issued on Aug. 29, 2023.

In granting the demurrer, the trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to present clear proof that the accused “fraudulently acted or deliberately omitted to do acts constituting smuggling.”     

It also ruled that the evidence failed to show that the accused have knowledge of the facts that the real contents of the container vans are hazardous wastes.   

With the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the case to the CA.

The OSG told the CA that when Eduardo and Flores filed their demurrer to evidence on June 17, 2023, they had yet to receive the order of the trial court on the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence as it was five days later when their counsel received through email the order dated June 19, 2023.   

Thus, the OSG pointed out that the demurrer to evidence was prematurely filed by Eduardo and Flores, which is considered a violation of the procedural rules.     

At the same time, the OSG said that Judge Medina committed grave abuse of discretion when he denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that the order of acquittal can no longer be questioned without violating the constitutional right against double jeopardy of the accused.     

In granting the OSG’s petition, the CA – in a decision written by Associate Justice Eleuterio L. Bathan with the concurrency by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio Valenzuela and Florencio M. Mamauag Jr. – ruled that there was grave abuse of discretion in the grant of the demurrer to evidence.

“It is crystal clear that the filing of the private respondents’ Demurrer to Evidence and the issuance of the 20 June 2023 assailed Order (Gallegos Order) was made even before the parties were informed of the 19 June 2023 Order that admitted the prosecution’s documentary evidence,” the CA pointed out.   

“In other words, the RTC, without observing the principle of due process hastily issued immediately the 20 June 2023 assailed Order (Gallegos Order) that granted the private respondents’ Demurrer to Evidence,” it stressed.      

Thus, the CA said that the RTC “deliberately deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to file its comment and/or objection to the private respondents’ demurrer to evidence.”     

“Inasmuch as the acquittal of the private respondents was done without regard to due process of law, the same is null and void. It is as if there was no acquittal at all, and the same cannot constitute double jeopardy,” the CA ruled.     

With its ruling, the CA directed the RTC “to resolve the Demurrer to Evidence with dispatch, after giving the prosecution the opportunity to file its comment and/or opposition to the private respondents’ Demurrer to Evidence.”