Lawyerly

GR No. 195289

2014-09-24

ROBINSON’S BANK CORPORATION v. SAMUEL H. GAERLAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

x x x 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.[48]

GR No. 191015

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. JOSE C. GO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Demurrer to the evidence[40] is "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused."[41] Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[42]

GR Nos. 195011-19

2013-09-30

GREGORIO SINGIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused."[43]

GR No. 159941

2011-08-17

HEIRS OF SPS. TEOFILO M. RETERTA AND ELISA RETERTA v. SPS. LORENZO MORES AND VIRGINIA LOPEZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Nor should the petitioner be denied the recourse despite certiorari not being available as a proper remedy against an assailed order, because it is better on balance to look beyond procedural requirements and to overcome the ordinary disinclination to exercise supervisory powers in order that a void order of a lower court may be controlled to make it conformable to law and justice.[15] Verily, the instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined, because to do so is to destroy the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the extraordinary writ. The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus, and that in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts, a superior court is to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case "as the ends of justice may require." Thus, the writ will be granted whenever necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.[16]

GR No. 185011

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL

VELASCO JR., J.

Although alleged by accused-appellants Ara and Musa, no reason was given in the appeal as to why the trial court erred in denying their Demurrer to Evidence. Whatever their basis may be, an action on a demurrer or on a motion to dismiss rests on the sound exercise of judicial discretion.[28] In Gutib v. CA,[29] we explained that: A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.

GR No. 179652

2009-05-08

PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

TINGA, J.

It must be remembered that a wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice in certiorari proceedings.[48] The Court has not too infrequently given due course to a petition for certiorari, even when the proper remedy would have been an appeal, where valid and compelling considerations would warrant such a recourse.[49] Moreover, the Court allowed a Rule 65 petition, despite the availability of plain, speedy or adequate remedy, in view of the importance of the issues raised therein.[50] The rules were also relaxed by the Court after considering the public interest involved in the case;[51] when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the broader interest of justice so requires; when the writs issued are null and void; or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[52]

GR No. 150731

2007-09-14

CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PHILBANKING CORPORATION

VELASCO JR., J.

In Gutib v. Court of Appeals, we defined a demurrer to evidence as "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue."[21]

GR NO. 163996

2005-06-09

JUAN G. RIVERA v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

A demurrer to evidence is defined as "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue".[16] The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict.[17] In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.[18]

GR No. 161817

2004-07-30

DANIEL D. CELINO v. HEIRS OF ALEJO

TINGA, J,

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE OF CO-PLAINTIFFS TO EXECUTE AND SIGN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING.[17] A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case.[18] It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.[19] The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case.[20] Thus, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, lack of legal capacity to sue is not a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence, pertaining as it does to a technical aspect, and it having nothing to do with the evidence on the merits of the complaint. Consequently, petitioner's Demurrer to Evidence and Motion for Reconsideration should be denied, as the trial court did.

GR Nos. 139913 & 140159

2004-01-16

TERESITA S. DAVID v. AGUSTIN RIVERA

TINGA, J,

It should be pointed out that the petitioners elevated to the appellate court the Order of the RTC denying their motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence. A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one party to the adequacy of the evidence of his adversary to make out a case. Otherwise stated, the party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict.[41] In this case, the trial court ruled that respondent's evidence in support of his application for a writ of prohibition was sufficient to require the presentation of petitioners' contravening proof. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in so ruling.

	GR No. 195289 2014-09-24	ROBINSON’S BANK CORPORATION v. SAMUEL H. GAERLAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
x x x 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.[48]
	GR No. 191015 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE C. GO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Demurrer to the evidence[40] is "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused."[41] Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[42]
	GR Nos. 195011-19 2013-09-30	GREGORIO SINGIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused."[43]
	GR No. 159941 2011-08-17	HEIRS OF SPS. TEOFILO M. RETERTA AND ELISA RETERTA v. SPS. LORENZO MORES AND VIRGINIA LOPEZ BERSAMIN, J.
Nor should the petitioner be denied the recourse despite certiorari not being available as a proper remedy against an assailed order, because it is better on balance to look beyond procedural requirements and to overcome the ordinary disinclination to exercise supervisory powers in order that a void order of a lower court may be controlled to make it conformable to law and justice.[15] Verily, the instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined, because to do so is to destroy the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the extraordinary writ. The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus, and that in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts, a superior court is to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case "as the ends of justice may require." Thus, the writ will be granted whenever necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.[16]
	GR No. 185011 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL VELASCO JR., J.
Although alleged by accused-appellants Ara and Musa, no reason was given in the appeal as to why the trial court erred in denying their Demurrer to Evidence. Whatever their basis may be, an action on a demurrer or on a motion to dismiss rests on the sound exercise of judicial discretion.[28] In Gutib v. CA,[29] we explained that: A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
	GR No. 179652 2009-05-08	PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TINGA, J.
It must be remembered that a wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice in certiorari proceedings.[48] The Court has not too infrequently given due course to a petition for certiorari, even when the proper remedy would have been an appeal, where valid and compelling considerations would warrant such a recourse.[49] Moreover, the Court allowed a Rule 65 petition, despite the availability of plain, speedy or adequate remedy, in view of the importance of the issues raised therein.[50] The rules were also relaxed by the Court after considering the public interest involved in the case;[51] when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the broader interest of justice so requires; when the writs issued are null and void; or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[52]
	GR No. 150731 2007-09-14	CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PHILBANKING CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
In Gutib v. Court of Appeals, we defined a demurrer to evidence as "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue."[21]
	GR NO. 163996 2005-06-09	JUAN G. RIVERA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A demurrer to evidence is defined as "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue".[16] The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict.[17] In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.[18]
	GR No. 161817 2004-07-30	DANIEL D. CELINO v. HEIRS OF ALEJO TINGA, J,
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE OF CO-PLAINTIFFS TO EXECUTE AND SIGN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING.[17] A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case.[18] It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.[19] The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case.[20] Thus, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, lack of legal capacity to sue is not a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence, pertaining as it does to a technical aspect, and it having nothing to do with the evidence on the merits of the complaint. Consequently, petitioner's Demurrer to Evidence and Motion for Reconsideration should be denied, as the trial court did.
	GR Nos. 139913 & 140159 2004-01-16	TERESITA S. DAVID v. AGUSTIN RIVERA TINGA, J,
It should be pointed out that the petitioners elevated to the appellate court the Order of the RTC denying their motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence. A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one party to the adequacy of the evidence of his adversary to make out a case. Otherwise stated, the party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict.[41] In this case, the trial court ruled that respondent's evidence in support of his application for a writ of prohibition was sufficient to require the presentation of petitioners' contravening proof. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in so ruling.

ARCANGEL GUTIB v. CA