Flashcards Studio

In a criminal case for estafa through deceit, after the prosecution rests, the defense files a demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts: The complainant, owner of a mid-size bookstore chain, testifies that between June 1–7, 2024, cash receipts totaling P380,000 disappeared from the store’s cash register. The accused, a cashier named N, admits handling cash on those dates but asserts that all receipts were reconciled with deposits. A store security guard testifies seeing N carry a bag into the stockroom at 1:45 PM on June 4; the store’s CCTV footage is partially obscured and shows only a silhouette in a cashier uniform. Bank records show deposits on June 2 and June 5 totaling P360,000 with no clear link to the missing amounts. The defense contends there is no direct link tying N to the misappropriation, and when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the People, there is reasonable doubt. (a) Identify the controlling doctrine and discuss whether the demurrer to evidence should be granted in these circumstances. (b) If the court grants the demurrer, what is the effect on the case and on the accused? (c) If the court denies the demurrer, what should the defense do next?