G.R. No. L-22733 - Benedicto vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves several accused, including Arcangel Gutib, charged with Qualified Theft for the alleged pilferage of diesel fuel valued at ₱380,400.00 from ERS Trucking.
The Information alleged that accused personnel, who were drivers of ERS Trucking Services (ERS), colluded with Gutib—the cashier of Honeywest gasoline station—to short-fill fuel tanks and/or convert purchase orders (POs) into cash.
ERS, owned by Eduardo and Filomena Sy, relied on a strict system wherein fuel requisition was effected through the issuance of POs that specified the exact fuel allowance per hauling assignment.

ERS obtained diesel fuel from various gasoline stations, including Honeywest, GELAC, and CARLAN, using POs issued for each hauling assignment.
The issuance of a PO was tightly regulated:

Each PO corresponded to a specific fuel allotment, generally sufficient for one or two hauling trips.
Prior to issuance of a subsequent PO, drivers were required to report completion of the previous hauling trip.

Testimonies from the state witnesses (Filomena Sy, Godofredo Jayme, Abraham Felix, Carlos Tisoy, Antonio Rosales, and others) highlighted that:

Fuel quantities were computed based on driving distances and the number of trips needed.
There was a uniform understanding that POs were effective only for the planned trip(s) and that any alleged discrepancies would prevent a driver from completing a trip due to insufficient fuel.

A comprehensive reinvestigation recommended that five accused drivers be discharged due to the insufficiency of the evidence against them; the prosecution later used these discharged witnesses against petitioner Gutib and accused Caballes.
Both Gutib and Caballes filed separate motions (demurrers to the evidence) while the trial court reordered the case:

The trial court denied Gutib’s demurrer to the evidence on the ground that issues such as credibility of witnesses and evidentiary inconsistencies should be properly examined during trial.
For accused Caballes, the demurrer was granted, leading to the dismissal of the case against him for “gross insufficiency of evidence.”

Accused Gutib moved for the inhibition of the judge on grounds of lack of confidence in an impartial disposal.

Following a series of motions for inhibition and reassignment, the case was finally assigned to Judge Meinrado P. Paredes at RTC-Br. 13.

When Gutib’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his demurrer was filed, it was initially denied by Judge Jose P. Soberano Jr. at RTC-Br. 21, and later dismissed by the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari alleging that such interlocutory orders are not ordinarily challengeable.

The prosecution’s evidence primarily relied on the testimonies of several state witnesses:

Filomena Sy testified regarding operational details in the computation and issuance of fuel allowances on the POs, including specific estimations for fuel usage per trip.
Testimonies from drivers (including Godofredo Jayme, Antonio Rosales, Carlos Tisoy, and others) corroborated the strict regulation of PO issuance and the practical impossibility of significant fuel pilferage.

The issuance of POs was subject to continuous monitoring by ERS through verification of completed hauling assignments.
No evidence showed a discrepancy between the number of fuel orders and the number of completed trips, thereby undermining the prosecution’s allegations of theft.

After the dismissal of his petition for certiorari and the denial of his initial motion for reconsideration, petitioner Gutib filed another motion for reconsideration.
The higher courts, upon re-examination of the full record and the statutory basis for demurrer to evidence, were persuaded that the evidence was grossly insufficient to sustain the conclusion of guilt against Gutib.
The Court’s review underscored that the prosecution had failed to pinpoint the precise degree of participation of petitioner in an alleged theft, and that the operational safeguards in place at ERS nullified the likelihood of any significant pilferage.

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner Gutib’s demurrer to the evidence, by failing to properly weigh the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.
Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper, appropriate, and available remedy for challenging the trial court’s interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to the evidence.