CRUZ VS PEOPLE

FACTS: On June 19, 1990, police officers arrested petitioner without warrant for illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver with six (6) rounds of ammunition while waiting outside the Manila Pavilion Hotel along U.N. Ave., Manila.

On June 25, 1990, Assistant Prosecutor Tranquil P. Salvador, Jr. filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, an information[3] against the accused for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866[4].

The trial court proceeded to try the case.  After the prosecution presented and formally offered its evidence, the trial court issued an order admitting in evidence the gun and ammunition seized from the accused, over his objections.  After the prosecution had rested its case, petitioner, on motion and upon leave of court, filed a demurrer to evidence.  The trial court denied the demurrer, and ordered the accused to present his evidence. Instead, the petitioner filed an MR, which the trial court denied

ISSUE: Whether the trial court made a reversible error in admission of evidence against the petitioner.

HELD: The trial court, in resolving petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, squarely addressed the latter’s contentions. The trial court ruled that the seized evidence was admissible, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction, if the accused presented no contrary evidence.

We find neither error nor patent abuse of discretion in the rulings of the trial court on these issues.  Thus, upon the denial of petitioner’s demurrer to evidence, he may present his evidence. After trial on the merits and the court issues a verdict of conviction, petitioner may seasonably appeal such decision, raising once again his defenses and objections.

The orderly procedure prescribed by the Revised Rules of Court is for the accused to present his evidence, after which the trial court, on its own assessment of the evidence submitted, will then properly render its judgment of acquittal or conviction. If judgment is rendered adversely against the accused, he may appeal the judgment and raise the same defenses and objections for review by the appellate court.