This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-01-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The filing by the appellants of a demurrer to evidence in the absence of prior leave of court was a clear waiver of their right to present their own evidence. To sustain their claim that they had been denied due process because the evidence they belatedly sought to offer would have exculpated them would be to allow them to "wager on the outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by convenience."[28] Furthermore, it cannot be said that the waiver was not clear. The trial court postponed the hearings on the motion for demurrer, even after leave of court had been denied, and then granted extensions to Amay until he finally adopted the position of his co-appellants. At no time other than in this automatic review was there any attempt that is contrary to the waiver of the presentation of evidence. | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| The filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave of court is an unqualified waiver of the right to present evidence for the accused.[37] The rationale for this rule is that when the accused moves for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution evidence, he does so in the belief that said evidence is insufficient to convict and, therefore, any need for him to present any evidence is negated. An accused cannot be allowed to wager on the outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by convenience. The purpose behind the rule is also to avoid the dilatory practice of filing motions for dismissal as a demurrer to the evidence and, after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the right to present its evidence.[38] | |||||