TOPIC: DEMURRER

HELD:
NOEL CRUZ vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, THE CA, AND THE RTC
BRANCH VI, MANILA
G.R. No. 121422 | February 23, 2009 |
Pardo, J.:
Digested By: Dolar, Theodore Adriel S.
NO. The rulings of the trial court being
questioned in this instant case are interlocutory
in nature and may not be subject of a separate
appeal or review on certiorari, but may be
assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal
properly taken from the decision rendered by the
trial court on the merits of the case.

DOCTRINE: A Demurrer to Evidence generally As to the demurrer, the question of

cannot be reviewed in special civil actions for whether the evidence presented by the
certiorari, except when such the granting or prosecution is sufficient to convince the court
denial of such demurrer is patently erroneous or that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable
is done with grave abuse of discretion. doubt rests entirely within the sound discretion
of the trial court. Errors in the denial of such
FACTS: demurrer may be corrected by appeal. They
 Petitioner was arrested without warrant cannot be reviewed in special civil actions as a
for illegal possession of a .38 caliber general rule, except when patently erroneous or
revolver with 6 rounds of ammunition. issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
 An Information was later filed Petitioner to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
for violation of PD. 1866.
 During his arraignment, the Petitioner This case does not fall within the
pleased no guilty. exceptions to the rule, as this Court finds no
 The Prosecution presented its evidence error nor grave abuse of discretion in the rulings
which was admitted by the RTC. of the trial court. Thus, the Petitioner may
 After the Prosecution rested its case, on present his evidence. After trial on the merits,
motion and upon leave of court, the and such verdict is adverse to him, the Petitioner
Petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence. may seasonably appeal such decision, raising
 The RTC denied the demurrer and again his defense and objections.
ordered the Petitioner to present his
evidence. The MR was likewise denied. PETITION IS DENIED.
 Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for
Certiorari to annul the orders of the RTC
which admitted the formal offer of
evidence of the Prosecution, denying
the Petitioner’s demurrer, and denying
Petitioner’s MR.
 The CA denied the petition for lack of
merit, ruling that the assailed orders
were interlocutory in nature and not
ordinarily reviewable by certiorari.
 Petitioner filed this instant Petition for
Review, alleging that the CA erred in
upholding the orders of the RTC. He
further alleges that the evidence of the
prosecution was insufficient to sustain a
conviction.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC erred in denying the

Demurrer.