G.R. No. 129774 - NARCISO A. TADEO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

accordingly denied the demurrer to evidence for lack of merit. [9] On January 13, 1995, the trial court also denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. [10] On September 7, 1995, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul the lower courts orders denying his demurrer to evidence. [11] After due proceedings, on February 7, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered decision dismissing the petition, for lack of merit. [12] The Court of Appeals ruled that certiorari does not lie to challenge the trial courts interlocutory order denying the accuseds motion to dismiss. Appeal in due time is the proper remedy in order to have the findings of facts of the respondent judge reviewed by a superior court. Hence, this petition. We deny the petition. We agree with the Court of Appeals that certiorari does not lie to review a trial courts interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss (or to acquit), which is equivalent to a demurrer to evidence, filed after the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case. An order denying a demurrer to evidence is interlocutory. It is not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. From such denial, appeal in due time is the proper remedy, not certiorari, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction, or an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. [13] However, petitioner submits that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion when the court held that there exists a prima facie case, disregarding the prosecutions failure to present as witness a representative of the drawee bank to testify on the dishonor of the questioned checks as an element of the offense charged. He insists that the testimony of the banks representative is mandatory. [14] We do not agree. It is not required, much less indispensable, for the prosecution to present the drawee banks representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks because of insufficiency of funds. The prosecution may present, as it did in this case, only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offense charged. [15] She is a competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the checks to her account in a bank; that she subsequently received from the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation "drawn against insufficient funds" stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves, or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to complainant, and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks or make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank. [16] Otherwise stated, complainants sole testimony suffices to identify the dishonored checks with the drawee banks notation stamped or written on the dorsal side "drawn against insufficient funds" or in a notice attached