(Philippine context)

For general information only. This is not a substitute for advice from a Philippine lawyer handling a specific case.

I. Context: Demurrer of Evidence in Criminal Cases

1. Demurrer of evidence: concept

In Philippine criminal procedure, a demurrer to evidence is a motion by the accused asking the court to dismiss the case after the prosecution rests, on the ground that the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

It is, in effect, a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence, filed after the prosecution has completed its presentation of evidence.
The standard is whether the prosecution’s evidence, if unrebutted, can sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

2. With or without leave of court

Under the Rules of Court on criminal procedure (Rule on trial and demurrer of evidence):

The accused may file a demurrer with leave of court; or
The accused may file it without leave of court.

The difference is crucial:

With leave of court
- The accused first files a motion for leave to file demurrer of evidence, explaining why the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient.
- If the court grants leave, the accused then files the demurrer.
- If the demurrer is later denied, the accused still has the right to present defense evidence.
Without leave of court
- The accused files a demurrer directly, without prior motion for leave.
- If the demurrer is denied, the accused waives the right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment based solely on the prosecution’s evidence.

Because of this, the Motion for Leave is strategically important. The prosecution can file an Opposition to Leave, arguing that the evidence is sufficient and the accused should be forced to choose: either present evidence or risk waiving that right by filing a demurrer without leave.

II. Deed Falsification as a Criminal Charge

1. Falsification of documents under the Revised Penal Code

“Deed falsification” in practice usually refers to falsification involving:

Deeds of Absolute Sale
Deeds of Donation, Exchange, Reconveyance, or similar conveyances
Other deeds affecting real or personal property

Depending on the nature of the deed and the person who falsified it, the charge commonly falls under:

Article 171 (Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary public in the performance of official duty, or by a private individual taking part in an official act);
Article 172(1) (Falsification by private individual of public, official or commercial document); or
Article 172(2) (Use of falsified document).

A notarized deed is generally treated as a public document. Even if the falsifier is a private individual, he may be prosecuted under Article 172(1), which adopts the acts listed in Article 171.

2. Common elements to be proved in falsification of a notarized deed

While specific elements vary depending on the exact article violated, generally the prosecution must show:

Existence of a public, official, commercial or private document (e.g., notarized Deed of Sale, thus a public document);
Falsification by one of the statutory modes, like:
- Counterfeiting or imitating handwriting or signature;
- Causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or proceeding when they did not;
- Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
- Altering true dates;
- Intercalating or omitting provisions in a document; etc.
Authorship or participation of the accused in the falsification;
Public faith in the document is offended (for public documents), and/or damage or intent to cause damage (necessary for certain private documents).

In many deed falsification cases, the core issue is forgery: the complainant denies having signed the deed, or claims that contents were altered or misrepresented.

III. Where Opposition to Leave Comes In

1. Procedural posture

The Opposition to Leave for Demurrer of Evidence is filed:

After the prosecution has rested and formally offered its evidence;
When the accused moves for leave of court to file a demurrer;
Before the court resolves that motion.

The prosecution’s objective is to persuade the court:

That the evidence already presented is sufficient to sustain a conviction if unrebutted;
That allowing a demurrer with leave is unnecessary and may only delay proceedings; and
Ideally, that the court should deny leave, so any demurrer filed without leave will carry the consequence that the accused waives the right to present evidence if the demurrer is denied.

2. Legal standard to highlight in opposition

The Opposition should emphasize that:

A demurrer should only be granted when the prosecution’s evidence utterly fails to establish an element of the offense, or is so weak that no reasonable judge could convict.
At the stage of ruling on leave, what matters is that the prosecution’s case is prima facie sufficient—not whether doubts exist that might be clarified by defense evidence.

Thus, the Opposition repeatedly returns to one theme:

“Taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, our evidence can support a conviction; therefore, leave to file demurrer should be denied.”

IV. Substantive Arguments in Opposing Leave in Deed Falsification Cases

An Opposition in falsification of deed cases is typically structured around the elements of the offense and how each element has been sufficiently covered by the prosecution’s evidence.

1. Existence and nature of the deed

The Opposition should stress:

The deed (e.g., Deed of Absolute Sale) has been properly identified and marked as an exhibit.
The original or an admissible copy was presented, following the best evidence rule (or a recognized exception).
If notarized, it is a public document; this should be specifically alleged and argued:
- A notarized deed is admissible without further proof of its authenticity as to its due execution and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, subject to evidence of falsification.

2. Falsity or falsification

The Opposition must show that the prosecution presented competent proof of falsification, such as:

Testimony of the supposed signatory (e.g., the complainant) categorically denying that he/she signed the deed or appeared before the notary public;
Testimony of the notary public (or the absence thereof with explanation) regarding who appeared before him, entries in the notarial register, and any irregularities;
Handwriting expert testimony comparing:
- Questioned signature on the deed; and
- Standard/known signatures of the complainant; concluding that the signature on the deed is forged, if such testimony was presented;
Circumstantial evidence:
- The complainant was abroad or incapacitated on the date the deed was purportedly executed;
- The deed contained impossible, inconsistent, or obviously false information;
- The accused had exclusive control over the preparation and registration of the deed.

The Opposition should argue that direct denial by the complainant plus corroborating circumstances already establish falsification sufficiently for purposes of defeating a demurrer.

3. Authorship or participation of the accused

This is often the focal point.

The Opposition should marshal evidence showing that the accused:

Prepared, caused to be prepared, or procured the falsified deed;
Presented or used the falsified deed before a notary public, Register of Deeds, or other offices;
Benefited from the deed (e.g., transfer of title into his name, cancellation of previous Transfer Certificate of Title, acquisition of taxes/refunds, etc.);
Played a role that, by its nature, indicates authorship or connivance, such as:
- Being the buyer in a questionable deed of sale;
- Supplying the erroneous personal details of the supposed seller;
- Being present when the deed was executed, while the complainant was actually absent or abroad.

The Opposition can invoke the presumption recognized in falsification jurisprudence that:

The person who benefits from a falsified document, and who had a hand in its preparation or presentation, is presumed to be the author of the falsification, absent a satisfactory explanation.

Even without direct eyewitness testimony of the actual forgery, a chain of strong circumstantial evidence can be enough to support conviction. The Opposition should insist this is more than enough to defeat a demurrer.

4. Damage or public faith

For public documents (such as notarized deeds), the offended interest is public faith. Actual monetary damage to the complainant may be helpful but not indispensable. Still, in deed falsification cases, damage is often obvious:

Complainant’s property is transferred to another via the falsified deed;
TCTs are cancelled;
The complainant loses possession, ownership, or peaceful enjoyment of the property.

The Opposition should:

Enumerate the concrete prejudice suffered by the complainant; and
Argue that the offense against public faith and damage to the private party are clearly shown by the prosecution’s documentary and testimonial evidence.

V. Evidentiary Issues Commonly Raised in Demurrers — and How to Counter Them

An accused seeking leave to file a demurrer often attacks the quality, credibility, or admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence. The Opposition should anticipate and meet these head-on.

1. Alleged inconsistencies in testimonies

The defense may argue that:

The complainant or witnesses gave inconsistent dates, figures, or minor details.

The Opposition should counter:

Minor inconsistencies are natural and may even be signs of unrehearsed testimony;
What matters is the core narrative: that the complainant did not sign the deed, did not appear before the notary, and did not authorize the conveyance;
At the demurrer stage, the court should not treat minor discrepancies as fatal, given that assessment of credibility is typically for the full trial, not a mini-trial on the demurrer.

2. Attacks on handwriting experts and forensic analysis

The defense may downplay expert findings.

The Opposition may argue:

Handwriting expert testimony is opinion evidence, but it is admissible and relevant;
The court is not barred from comparing signatures on its own;
Even without an expert, positive denial by the complainant and strong circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction.

3. Alleged gaps in chain of custody or authenticity of documents

In property-related cases, defense may question how the deed or TCTs were obtained.

The Opposition should point out:

Proper marking and identification of the deed and related documents;
Testimony of custodians or appropriate officials (e.g., Register of Deeds personnel) who certified or brought the originals/records;
Compliance with rules on public documents, official records, and certified copies.

4. “Civil dispute only” argument

Accused often argue the case is purely civil (e.g., a misunderstanding about property, or alleged prejudice should be resolved in a civil action).

The Opposition should respond:

Where a deed is forged or falsified, public faith is directly attacked and a criminal offense is involved;
The presence of civil liability does not preclude criminal liability;
The nature of the evidence shows more than a mere contract dispute; it shows deliberate falsification.

VI. Formal Structure of an Opposition to Leave

While formats vary, a typical Opposition to a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer of Evidence in a deed falsification case includes:

Caption and title
- Same as in the main criminal case, with title:
  
  “OPPOSITION (To Accused’s Motion for Leave to File Demurrer of Evidence)”
Introductory paragraph
- Identifying the motion being opposed;
- Stating that the prosecution objects to the granting of leave because its evidence is sufficient.
Brief statement of facts and proceedings
- That the prosecution has completed presentation and formally offered its evidence;
- That witnesses and exhibits have been presented to prove each element of falsification.
Argument section, organized as:
- A. Legal standard for leave and demurrer of evidence
  - Reciting that demurrer lies only if the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient;
  - Emphasizing that the test is whether, if unrebutted, it can sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
- B. Prosecution evidence sufficiently establishes all elements of falsification of deed
  - Subsections on:
    - Existence and nature of the deed;
    - Falsification (forged signature or untruthful narration);
    - Participation of the accused;
    - Offense against public faith and/or damage.
- C. Issues raised by the accused go to weight and credibility, not to absolute insufficiency
  - Arguing that inconsistencies or alleged weaknesses are matters for full trial and decision on the merits, not for dismissal via demurrer.
Prayer
- Asking the court to deny the motion for leave;
- Alternatively, reserving the right to oppose the demurrer itself if leave is nevertheless granted.
Signature block, verification (if required), and service
- Signed by the public prosecutor and, if there is a private prosecutor, by counsel for the offended party.

VII. Strategic Considerations for the Prosecution and Private Complainant

1. Why oppose leave?

From the prosecution’s perspective:

If leave is denied, the accused has two options:
1. File a demurrer without leave, thereby risking waiver of the right to present evidence if denied; or
2. Forego demurrer and proceed to present defense evidence.

In practice, a strong Opposition can encourage the court to deny leave, thus:

Discouraging a demurrer; or
Forcing the accused to take the risk of filing one without leave.

2. If the court grants leave anyway

If the court still grants leave despite the Opposition:

The prosecution may still oppose the demurrer proper by filing a Comment/Opposition to Demurrer of Evidence, expanding its arguments and discussing the evidence in detail.
Even if the demurrer is later denied, the accused, having filed with leave, retains the right to present evidence.

3. Risk of acquittal and double jeopardy

If the court grants the demurrer and dismisses the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence:

This operates as an acquittal;
Double jeopardy bars appeal on the criminal aspect;
Only the civil aspect may, in limited situations, still be pursued.

Hence, a careful and thorough Opposition (to leave and to the demurrer itself) helps reduce the risk that the court will mistakenly conclude that prosecution evidence is insufficient.

VIII. Coordination with the Civil Aspect and Land Registration

In deed falsification cases, there are often parallel or subsequent civil proceedings, such as:

Annulment or cancellation of title;
Reconveyance of property;
Quieting of title;
Damages.

The Opposition should subtly underscore that:

The criminal case has independent significance because it protects public faith in notarized documents and real property records;
The prosecution’s evidence is strong enough to justify holding the accused to account criminally, regardless of any separate civil remedies;
Criminal conviction helps reinforce civil claims, though the standards of proof differ.

IX. Common Pitfalls in Drafting an Opposition

Failure to tie evidence to each element
- The Opposition must walk the judge through, element by element, stating which witness and which exhibit prove each.
Over-reliance on generalities
- Merely asserting that “the evidence is sufficient” without specifics may make the court more comfortable granting leave.
Not addressing the accused’s strongest points
- If the accused alleges a “fatal gap,” such as no proof of authorship or no proof that complainant did not sign, the Opposition must squarely refute that claim.
Ignoring admissibility issues raised by defense
- If the accused challenges admissibility of key documents, the Opposition should explain:
  - Why the documents are admissible; or
  - Why even without them, there remains enough evidence to warrant denial of demurrer.
Neglecting the role of circumstantial evidence
- In document falsification, direct evidence of the actual act of forgery is rare. The Opposition should remind the court that convictions may rest on strong circumstantial evidence.

X. Conclusion

In Philippine prosecutions for falsification of deeds, the Opposition to Leave for Demurrer of Evidence plays a critical role in:

Preventing premature dismissal of criminal charges;
Ensuring that the court fully appreciates the prima facie sufficiency of the evidence presented;
Protecting the integrity of public records and the public’s reliance on notarized documents and land titles.

A well-prepared Opposition:

Accurately states the legal standard for demurrer and leave of court;
Systematically demonstrates that every element of deed falsification is supported by testimonial and documentary evidence;
Answers the defense’s key objections, showing that any issues raised go to weight and credibility—matters for final judgment, not for dismissal at the demurrer stage; and
Positions the prosecution to withstand attempts to avoid full trial scrutiny in cases where public faith and property rights have been gravely compromised.

Anyone drafting or relying on such an Opposition should carefully review the current Rules of Court on demurrer of evidence, applicable Revised Penal Code provisions, and recent jurisprudence on falsification and demurrers, and seek tailored advice from counsel.