Demurrer to Evidence in Qualified Theft Cases
(Philippine Criminal Procedure and Substantive Law)

1. Overview

A demurrer to evidence is the accused’s motion to dismiss a criminal action on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence, even if taken as true, fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is governed by Rule 119, § 23 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (“ROC”). In qualified‑theft prosecutions under Articles 308–310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), a demurrer is a particularly potent remedy because the felony carries a penalty two degrees higher than that for simple theft; thus the prosecution must satisfy both the basic theft elements and at least one qualifying circumstance enumerated in Art. 310.

Failure to prove any element—or the proper value of the thing stolen after the 2017 recalibration of amounts under R.A. 10951—is fatal; hence the defense often moves for a demurrer at the close of the People’s case.

2. Elements the Prosecution Must Prove

Element (Simple Theft)	Additional Requisites for Qualified Theft
1. Taking of personal property (corporeal or incorporeal money)	Property must have been taken with grave abuse of confidence or under another qualifying circumstance in Art. 310 (e.g., by a domestic servant, on the occasion of fire/calamity, fish/cattle/coconuts, motor vehicle, etc.).
2. That the property belongs to another	Ownership, or at least possession superior to the accused’s, must be shown with competent testimony or documents (e.g., corporate records for company funds).
3. That the taking was without the owner’s consent	Lack of consent is presumed when taking is clandestine; in employer–employee scenarios the prosecution must negate authority or delegation of disposition.
4. That it was accomplished with intent to gain (animus lucrandi)	Direct proof is rare; the People may rely on the presumption of intent to gain from unexplained taking.
5. That it was without violence or intimidation against the person	If violence/intimidation is present, the crime may be robbery, not theft.
6. Value of the property (now governed by R.A. 10951)	For qualified theft the penalty is two degrees higher than that provided in Art. 309 for the same amount. Thus precise valuation is indispensable.

If any square of this matrix is missing, the defense may file a demurrer.

3. Procedural Mechanics Under Rule 119 § 23

Timing – After the prosecution rests but before the accused begins presenting evidence.
With leave vs. without leave of court
- With leave:
  - Motion for leave is filed within 5 days from the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence.
  - If leave is granted, the demurrer itself must be filed within 10 days (non‑extendible).
  - If denied, the accused may still adduce his own evidence.
- Without leave:
  - The accused skips the leave stage and files the demurrer outright.
  - Risk: If the court denies the demurrer, the defense is deemed to have waived its right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment on the prosecution’s proof alone (People v. Go, G.R. 200075, 19 Mar 2014).
Standard on resolution – The trial court assesses the People’s evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, discarding inconsistencies that go merely to credibility. If, on that yardstick, a conviction still cannot stand, the demurrer must be granted and the accused acquitted as a matter of right.
Effect of a grant – An acquittal via demurrer is equivalent to an acquittal after full trial; it immediately extinguishes criminal liability. Only a Rule 65 petition for grave abuse of discretion (strictly alleging jurisdictional error or whimsical disregard of evidence, as in People v. Dizon, G.R. 191436, 11 Apr 2011) may be entertained, and even then the accused cannot be placed in double jeopardy. Civil liability, however, may survive (Art. 29, Civil Code; Heirs of Malate v. People, G.R. 234434, 05 Jun 2019).

4. Grounds Commonly Asserted in Qualified‑Theft Demurrers

Ground	Illustration / Case Notes
Failure to prove intent to gain	Where company cash shortages are attributed to systemic accounting gaps rather than personal appropriation (e.g., People v. Legrama, G.R. 194758, 02 Mar 2015—the Court ruled evidence showed mere negligence, not intent to gain).
Ownership/identity of property unclear	Corporate complainant omitted its SEC registration or board authority; money allegedly stolen traced only by photocopied receipts; chain‑of‑custody gaps for jewelry, etc.
Absence of qualifying circumstance	Prosecution proves theft by rank‑and‑file employee but fails to show “grave abuse of confidence” beyond the ordinary employer‑employee trust (SC in People v. de la Cruz, G.R. 212825, 09 Jan 2019, reduced liability to simple theft).
Incorrect valuation after R.A. 10951	Failure to present audited financial statements or official receipts leads to application of lowest penalty; without precise valuation, court may rule the People’s evidence insufficient.
Variance between information and proof	Information charged taking of motor vehicle but evidence shows cash; a demurrer may lie because proof does not conform to the charge and amendment would prejudice substantial rights.
Documentary exhibits not formally offered	Art. 310 requires “in relation to Art. 309” proof of value. If bookkeeping printouts were identified but not formally offered, they are deemed inadmissible; demurrer succeeds (People v. Catantan, CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. 05240, 2019).

5. Jurisprudential Benchmarks

Case	G.R. No. / Date	Ratio Pertinent to Demurrer
People v. Go	200075, 19 Mar 2014	Demurrer without leave denied: accused forfeited right to present defense evidence; conviction affirmed.
People v. Legrama	194758, 02 Mar 2015	Prosecution failed to prove intent to gain; SC set aside conviction and ordered acquittal, effectively saying trial court should have granted demurrer.
People v. Dizon	191436, 11 Apr 2011	Acquittal via demurrer may be reviewed only on jurisdictional grounds; mere misappreciation of evidence is insufficient to overturn.
Spouses Abrogar v. People	170593, 21 Feb 2018	Qualified theft conviction reversed; SC stressed need for clear proof of abuse of confidence.
People v. Sia	230062, 27 Mar 2019	Failure to prove corporate complainant’s board authority fatally flawed the People’s case; demurrer should have prospered.
People v. Miñano	225327‑28, 06 Jul 2020	Clarified that valuation must reflect actual market value at the time of taking after R.A. 10951; speculative estimates insufficient.

6. Strategic Considerations for Defense Counsel

Evaluate Prosecution’s Formal Offer – Insist that every exhibit be offered, and object timely. Missing formal offer = unusable evidence.
Scrutinize Value Proof – Cross‑examine on bookkeeper competence, receipt authenticity, dates vis‑à‑vis R.A. 10951.
Leave or No Leave? –
If the People’s evidence is patently hollow, a demurrer without leave puts pressure on the court but carries the waiver risk.
If doubts remain, seek leave first; if granted, you keep your right to present evidence should the motion fail.
Parallel Civil Defense – Because civil liability can survive acquittal, prepare contingency arguments on damages and restitution.
Bail Implications – Qualified theft frequently exceeds P1,200,000, drawing penalties up to reclusion perpetua; if the demurrer is granted, any hold‑departure order is automatically lifted; if denied without leave, and the accused waived evidence, an adverse judgment may follow swiftly—plan accordingly.
Electing to Testify – Filing a demurrer without leave is inconsistent with plans to put the accused on the stand. Synchronize trial theory early.

7. Prosecution Counter‑Strategies

Iron‑clad Chain of Custody – Present independent auditors, trace documents, bank CCTV, to nail identity of property.
Prove Animus Lucrandi by Circumstance – Sudden affluence of employee, recovery of stolen property in hands of accused, or admissions under custodial investigation.
Lay the Foundation for Qualifying Circumstance – Show the depth of confidence reposed (e.g., signatory powers, vault access) via HR manuals, company resolutions.
Pre‑emptive Re‑opening – If gaps emerge, prosecution may move to recall a witness motu proprio before resting; once it rests, it is at the mercy of the demurrer.

8. Civil Liability After Demurrer

An acquittal “on reasonable doubt” does not automatically bar an independent civil action. The court may:

Make a reservation for the offended party to sue separately; or
Hold the accused civilly liable if the acquittal is based on non‑existence of crime but negligence still attaches (Art. 29, Civil Code).

Hence, even on demurrer, defense counsel should contest evidence of actual damages and moral damages.

9. Comparison with Other Remedies

Remedy	Stage Invoked	Distinguished From Demurrer
Motion to Dismiss (Rule 117)	Before plea	Raises jurisdictional defects, duplicitous information, prescription, etc.
Motion for Leave to File Demurrer (Rule 119)	After prosecution rests	Seeks permission to test sufficiency of evidence; procedural safeguard against surprise.
Motion for Reconsideration of Denied Demurrer	Within reglementary period	Permitted but rarely granted; does not toll waiver if demurrer filed without leave.
Petition for Bail	Any time	Addresses right to provisional liberty; independent of merits.

10. Practical Checklist Before Filing a Demurrer in Qualified Theft

Are all physical and documentary exhibits formally offered?
Is there direct or circumstantial proof of animus lucrandi?
Has the prosecution shown any of the Art. 310 qualifiers and linked it to the accused?
Is the market value of the thing at the time of taking established with competent testimony or records?
Do admissions/confessions exist that are independently corroborated?
Have you secured leave (if prudent) within 5 days of the offer?
Have you prepared a fallback defense in case the motion is denied?

11. Conclusion

A demurrer to evidence is the criminal‑procedure equivalent of a knockout punch thrown at mid‑trial. In qualified theft cases—where penalties are harsh and the prosecution carries the heavy burden of proving both theft and the specific qualifying circumstance—it is an indispensable tactical option. Success pivots on a meticulous dissection of the People’s proof: ownership, valuation, intent to gain, abuse of confidence, and compliance with documentary‑evidence formalities.

For defense counsel, the decision with or without leave must be grounded on an unsentimental audit of the records. For prosecutors, anticipating demurrer pitfalls means front‑loading every required element and safeguarding the chain of custody. Courts, for their part, must resist weighing credibility like triers of fact; their task on demurrer is simply to ask: Can the evidence, taken at face value, sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt? If the answer is no, the Constitution leaves them no choice but to acquit.

This article integrates relevant Rules of Court provisions, key Supreme Court rulings, and practical trial strategies as of 20 April 2025. It is for academic discussion and should not replace independent legal advice for any specific case.