GR L 51635; (December, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-51635 December 14, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., HON. BUENAVENTURA S. DE LA FUENTE, HON. EDGARDO L. PARAS, MELCHOR J. JAVIER and VICTORIA L. JAVIER, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Melchor and Victoria Javier were charged with estafa before the Circuit Criminal Court for allegedly converting to their own use an erroneous bank remittance of US$999,993.70, instead of the intended US$1,000.00. After the prosecution rested its case, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied, finding a prima facie case and setting the case for the presentation of the defense evidence. Instead of presenting evidence, the accused filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court’s interlocutory order.
In their petition before the CA, the accused moved to waive their right to present evidence and to have the trial court’s order denying their demurrer be considered a “judgment of conviction,” and their certiorari petition be treated as an “appeal.” The CA granted this motion through a resolution and later declared the case submitted for decision even without the required briefs.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the accused’s motion to convert the special civil action of certiorari into an appeal from a non-existent judgment of conviction.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the CA’s resolutions. The trial court’s order denying the demurrer to evidence was merely an interlocutory order, not a final judgment of conviction. A demurrer to evidence is an interlocutory pleading; its denial merely allows the trial to proceed for the reception of the defense’s evidence. Consequently, there was no final judgment from which an appeal could be taken. The Court of Appeals, being a court of appellate jurisdiction, could not arrogate unto itself the trial court’s original jurisdiction by creating a fictional judgment. Its only permissible course of action was to dismiss the certiorari petition, as the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding a prima facie case, and remand the case for the continuation of trial and the rendition of a proper judgment. The CA’s act of converting the petition and proceeding to decide the “appeal” prematurely was a usurpation of the trial court’s exclusive original jurisdiction.