Court orders two defendants to file 'demurrer to evidence' in Yongco case

The Regional Trial Court has ordered two of the three accused in the murder of lawyer Arbet Sta Ana Yongco to file their respective demurer to evidence within 10 days after receiving the order that granted them a "leave of court."

A "leave of court" is a permission from the court to take action that would otherwise not be permissible. And the 10-day period within which to file the demurrer could not be extended, said RTC-branch 20 Judge Bienvenido Saniel Jr.

Judge Saniel granted the motion of accused Nestor Carrol and Heracleo Rallestan for leave of court, so he ordered them to file now the "demurrer to evidence" as they had intended. The prosecution was also given the same period to file its opposition on the matter.

A "demurrer to evidence" has the same effect of a motion to dismiss, with the connotation that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient.

This means that should the court grant the defense a demurrer, the latter would no longer have to present its own evidence, and the court would have to decide the case.

In case the court denies the demurrer, however, the defense would still be allowed to present its evidence.

Carrol and Rallestan, together with Michel Favila, Sr. have been indicted for the murder of Yongco, few years ago, the private prosecutor of the parricide case against Ruben Ecleo Jr, head of the Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association.

Judge Saniel, in a one-page order dated March 1, denied the prosecution's opposition to the defense move for "leave of court", declaring that the motion was sufficient in form and substance, based on Section 23 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures.

Defense counsel Noel Archival has been arguing that prosecution's evidence is weak, prompting the move for a "demurrer to evidence."

"The evidence presented by the prosecution apparently showed weakness and flaws, which cannot be discounted in determining the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," argued Carrol and Rallestan through their lawyer.

They said that the existence of conspiracy was not sufficiently and adequately established. "Conspiracy cannot be established by mere conjectures but by positive and conclusive evidence," they said.

Even the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the crime of murder charged against them, they said. - Fred P. Languido