Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    GUTIB V CA

    Uploaded by

    Vince Montealto
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied Gutib's demurrer to evidence. The prosecution evidence against Gutib was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. While certiorari does not normally lie to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence, it is allowed in cases where the denial amounted to grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, as in this case. The Supreme Court has wide discretion to issue certiorari as necessary to prevent substantial wrong or do substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GUTIB V CA

    Uploaded by

    Vince Montealto
    89 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied Gutib's demurrer to evidence. The prosecution evidence against Gutib was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. While certiorari does not normally lie to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence, it is allowed in cases where the denial amounted to grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, as in this case. The Supreme Court has wide discretion to issue certiorari as necessary to prevent substantial wrong or do substantial justice.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    GUTIB-v-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied Gutib's demurrer to evidence. The prosecution evidence against Gutib was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. While certiorari does not normally lie to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence, it is allowed in cases where the denial amounted to grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, as in this case. The Supreme Court has wide discretion to issue certiorari as necessary to prevent substantial wrong or do substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    89 views2 pages

    GUTIB V CA

    Uploaded by

    Vince Montealto
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied Gutib's demurrer to evidence. The prosecution evidence against Gutib was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. While certiorari does not normally lie to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence, it is allowed in cases where the denial amounted to grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, as in this case. The Supreme Court has wide discretion to issue certiorari as necessary to prevent substantial wrong or do substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GUTIB v.

    CA1
    FACTS: Gutib and others were charged with qualified theft before the RTC.
    After the presentation of evidence of the prosecution, Gutib and Caballes filed
    their separate demurrers to the evidence with prior leave of court. The judge
    denied Gutibs demurrer for lack of factual and legal basis but granted Bs
    demurrer. Gutib elevated the matter to the CA on a petition for certiorari
    under Rule 65. CA dismissed the petition.
    ISSUE: WON TC committed GADLEJ in denying petitioners demurrer to
    evidence. YES.
    WON petition for certiorari is the proper, appropriate and available remedy to
    question the trial courts order denying the demurrer to evidence.
    HELD:
    The prosecution evidence against the accused is grossly insufficient to
    support a finding of guilt. The public prosecutor himself considered,
    that there was not enough evidence to secure a conviction, hence, the
    necessity of discharging five (5) of the accused to be utilized as state
    witnesses. But even so, the testimonies of these witnesses were
    unable to make up for the inherent weakness of the prosecution; and,
    far from proving the precise degree of culpability of petitioner, they
    only disclosed exculpatory facts, which clearly justify the grant of the
    demurrer, or warrant the dismissal of the case against petitioner.
    Court of Appeals held that certiorari does not lie to challenge the trial
    courts interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss by way of a
    demurrer to the evidence. According to respondent appellate court, the
    proper remedy was for the accused to present his evidence during the
    trial after which the court, on its own assessment of the evidence
    submitted by both parties, would then render its judgment of acquittal
    or conviction. If the verdict is one of acquittal the case ends there. But
    if it is one of conviction, then appeal is the proper recourse. But the
    rule is not absolute and admits of an exception. Thus where, as in the
    instant case, the denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court was
    tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may assail the order of denial on
    certiorari.
    The cases in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined, because to
    do so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness. So
    wide is the discretion of the court that authority is not wanting to show
    that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or
    mandamus. In the exercise of our superintending control over inferior
    courts, we are to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular
    case as the ends of justice may require. So it is that the writ will be
    granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do
    substantial justice

    Gutib v. CA G.R. No. 131209. August 13, 1999

    You might also like