G.R. No. 165496 , June 29, 2007
Hun Hyung Park, petitioner, vs. Eung Won Choi, respondent.

FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Hun Hyung Park. The petitioner, for the first time, raised the matter of inadvertence regarding the improper verification of his petition, claiming he overlooked the required phrase “or based on authentic records.” The Court acknowledged this as an honest mistake and considered relaxing the verification rule. However, the core procedural lapse pertained to the petitioner’s failure to attach the required MeTC (Metropolitan Trial Court) Orders to his petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42.
The procedural history stems from a criminal case for estafa with a civil aspect for damages. The MeTC granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence and dismissed the entire case. The petitioner appealed to the RTC (Regional Trial Court). The RTC initially reversed the MeTC, but upon reconsideration, it reinstated the MeTC’s dismissal of the criminal aspect while remanding the civil aspect for further proceedings. The petitioner then elevated the case via a petition for review under Rule 42 but failed to attach the February 27, 2003 MeTC Order that dismissed the case.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration should be granted despite his procedural failures, particularly the non-attachment of the requisite MeTC Order and his misinterpretation of the rules governing demurrers to evidence in criminal cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration. On procedure, the Court held that the petitioner’s failure to attach the MeTC Order was fatal. Rule 42 explicitly requires attaching a duplicate original or certified true copy of the lower courts’ judgments or final orders. The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the MeTC Order was not adverse to him, noting that if it were favorable, he would not have appealed to the RTC. Since the MeTC Order dismissed his entire case, it was undoubtedly adverse, and its non-attachment warranted dismissal of his petition.
On the substantive argument, the Court clarified the law on demurrers to evidence in criminal cases. The petitioner erroneously invoked Rule 33 (on demurrer to evidence in civil cases) and claimed the respondent waived his right to present evidence. The Court explained that in criminal cases, the granting of a demurrer to evidence is tantamount to an acquittal and cannot be reversed on appeal without violating double jeopardy. Therefore, there is no concept of “waiver” in that context. The RTC correctly held it could not review the criminal acquittal. However, the civil aspect was improperly dismissed by the MeTC. The evidence insufficient for proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal standard) may still be sufficient under preponderance of evidence (civil standard). Thus, the RTC’s final order remanding the civil aspect for further proceedings was correct, and the petitioner’s arguments lacked merit.