GR 129774; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129774 December 29, 1998
NARCISO A. TADEO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Narciso A. Tadeo was charged with eight counts of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22). The charges stemmed from eight postdated checks he issued to complainant Luz M. Sison to settle rental arrears, all of which were dishonored upon presentment with the notation “DAIF” (Drawn Against Insufficient Funds). After the prosecution rested its case, Tadeo filed a demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the offense, particularly by not presenting a representative from the drawee bank to testify on the dishonor. The trial court denied the demurrer, finding a prima facie case existed.
Tadeo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the trial court’s order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence. Tadeo elevated the case to the Supreme Court via appeal, insisting the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by holding a prima facie case existed despite the alleged fatal omission in the prosecution’s evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the demurrer to evidence based on the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove an essential element of the offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence. Such an order is not appealable, and certiorari lies only if the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the prosecution is not required to present a representative from the drawee bank to testify on the dishonor of the checks. The sole testimony of the complainant, who presented the checks bearing the bank’s notation “drawn against insufficient funds,” is sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under Section 3 of B.P. 22. This creates a disputable presumption that the drawer knew of the insufficiency. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption. Consequently, the prosecution, through complainant’s testimony, adequately proved all elements of the offense. The trial court correctly found a prima facie case. The records were remanded to the trial court for further proceedings limited to the imposition of sentence.