AS A GENERAL RULE, AN ORDER GRANTING THE ACCUSED’S DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO AN ACQUITTAL.

There are certain exceptions, however, as when the grant thereof would not violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. For instance, this Court ruled that when there is a finding that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence, its judgment is considered void, as this Court ruled in People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, 16 March 2007, 518 SCRA 393.) By this time, it is settled that the appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy. Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated. In the instant case, having affirmed the CA finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court when it granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence, the Supreme Curt  deem its consequent order of acquittal void (HON. JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS., ET AL.G.R. NO. 189365, OCTOBER 12, 2011, SERENO, J.).