G.R. No. 131209 , August 13, 1999
Arcangel Gutib, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Arcangel Gutib, along with several truck drivers, was charged with Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The Information alleged that the drivers, who had access to the diesel fuel account of ERS Trucking Services through purchase orders (POs), connived with Gutib, the cashier of Honeywest gasoline station, to take fuel valued at P380,400.00. The spouses Eduardo and Filomena Sy, owners of ERS, accused Gutib of inducing drivers to underfill their fuel tanks in exchange for goodwill money or by exchanging unused POs for cash. The public prosecutor initially recommended discharging five accused drivers to be state witnesses due to insufficient evidence. After the prosecution presented its evidence, Gutib filed a demurrer to evidence. Judge Meinrado P. Paredes denied Gutib’s demurrer but granted that of his co-accused Rodolfo Caballes, dismissing the case against Caballes for gross insufficiency of evidence. Gutib’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the judge subsequently assigned to the case. The Court of Appeals dismissed Gutib’s petition for certiorari, upholding the rule that such an interlocutory order cannot be challenged via certiorari but only through an appeal after trial. The Supreme Court initially denied Gutib’s petition and motion for reconsideration but, upon a second motion for reconsideration, took a second hard look at the records.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s demurrer to the evidence.
2. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to question the trial court’s order denying a demurrer to evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration. On the first issue, the Court found the prosecution evidence grossly insufficient to convict. The testimonies of the discharged state witnesses were inconsistent and failed to prove Gutib’s guilt. Specifically, the evidence showed: the POs were prepared by the Sy spouses based on estimated consumption; drivers could use leftover fuel for personal trips, which was a known practice; there was no proof Gutib received money from the transactions; and the alleged shortages were based on unreliable estimates. The demurrer correctly challenged the sufficiency, not the credibility, of the evidence. On the second issue, while certiorari is generally not the remedy for denying a demurrer, the Court exercised its supervisory powers as an exception, given the clear insufficiency of evidence, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and avoid a unnecessary trial. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, granted the demurrer to evidence, dismissed the Information for Qualified Theft, and acquitted Gutib.