Tadeo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves eight (8) cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) filed against petitioner Narciso A. Tadeo. The charges stem from eight (8) postdated checks issued by petitioner to settle rental arrears amounting to P113,300.00 for commercial apartments leased by his wife. Upon deposit, all checks were dishonored by the drawee bank with the notation "DAIF" (drawn against insufficient funds). Despite a demand letter from the complainant's counsel, petitioner failed to redeem the checks or make payment arrangements. Procedural History: Following the dishonor of the checks and the complainant's demand, eight (8) Informations for violation of BP 22 were filed against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City. Petitioner's motion to quash the informations was denied by the RTC. After entering a plea of not guilty and marking documentary evidence during pre-trial, the prosecution presented its evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, Luz Sison. Subsequently, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court, which the RTC denied, finding a prima facie case. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to annul the RTC's orders denying his demurrer to evidence. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy for an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence, and that appeal in due time was the appropriate recourse. The Petition: Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decision. He argued that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding that a prima facie case existed, contending that the prosecution failed to present a representative from the drawee bank to testify on the dishonor of the checks, which he considered a mandatory element. The Supreme Court denied the petition, agreeing with the CA that certiorari does not lie to review an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. The Court further held that the testimony of a bank representative is not indispensable, as the complainant's testimony, coupled with the dishonored checks bearing the "DAIF" notation, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under BP 22, creating a disputable presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds that the petitioner failed to rebut. rebut. The Court also noted that by failing to seek leave to file the demurrer, petitioner forfeited his right to adduce evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail an order denying a demurrer to evidence. Whether the testimony of a representative from the drawee bank is indispensable to prove the offense of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing the petition for certiorari. The Court held that an order denying a demurrer to evidence is interlocutory and not appealable, and cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari, unless there is grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. Appeal in due time is the proper remedy. The Court also ruled that the testimony of a drawee bank representative is not indispensable to prove the dishonor of checks under BP 22; the complainant's testimony, along with the checks bearing the "DAIF" notation and notice of dishonor, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari to assail an order denying a demurrer to evidence: The Court reiterated the established rule that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence. Such an order is not appealable, and appeal in due time is the appropriate recourse. The Court emphasized that certiorari is only available in cases of grave abuse of discretion, capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, or when the lower court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. In this case, the denial of the demurrer to evidence was found to be a valid exercise of discretion by the trial court, and not attended by grave abuse. The petitioner's failure to seek leave of court before filing the demurrer further weakened his position, as it resulted in the loss of his right to adduce evidence. On the necessity of a drawee bank representative's testimony: The Court clarified that it is not required, much less indispensable, for the prosecution to present a representative from the drawee bank to testify on the dishonor of checks due to insufficient funds. The prosecution may rely on the complainant's testimony to prove all the elements of the offense. The complainant can testify that she deposited the checks, received them back unpaid with the "DAIF" notation, and that the petitioner failed to pay within the statutory period after notice. This testimony, coupled with the physical checks themselves bearing the bank's notation or a notice of dishonor, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case. A legal presumption arises that the petitioner had knowledge of the dishonor and the reason therefor, which the accused must rebut. The Court cited previous rulings in Lim Lao vs. Court of Appeals and Navarro vs. Court of Appeals to support this position.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari does not lie to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence, as appeal in due time is the proper remedy, absent grave abuse of discretion. The testimony of a drawee bank representative is not indispensable to prove dishonor of checks under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22; the complainant's testimony, coupled with the checks bearing the "DAIF" notation and notice of dishonor, suffices to establish a prima facie case.