ACTREG 3

Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

MARCOS both legislative and executive
- Tried to take off bad checks by adding punishments
- Mala prohibita – good faith is not a defense and the act of issuance of worthless
checks regardless of motif is a crime
o Publishing of worthless check is under this
- Mala in se – wrong because prohibited

A. Punishable Acts under BP 22

1. Any person who (a) makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or
for value (checking account is 10,000 but issued 450,000 the check itself is the
evidence), (b) knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment (hard to prove that the issuer knows that the check has no
fund because knowledge is a state of mind and the accused has the right to
remain silent [check letter D for evidence]) , (c) which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
2. Any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when
he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a
period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it
is dishonored by the drawee bank.
o When you issued the check, it is funded so it is the issuer legal obligation
to maintain the balance for a period of 90 days
o Problem: If issuer withdraws the balance within 90 days before the holder
encashes the check
 If holder encashes on the 100 th day and the check is no longer
funded, letter b is not applicable but there is still breach of contract

B. Elements of Criminal Violation of BP 22 for issuance of worthless checks

1. There must be making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account
or for value.
2. There must be knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of
issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment.
3. There must be subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or creditor dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
o You have to present the employee of deliverer that there is a proof of
receipt
C. Penalty for violation of BP 22 at the discretion of the court
Supreme Court recommended to issue fines as penalties instead of imprisonment;
however, still based on the court what penalty to impose if pure fines, pure
imprisonment, or both
1. Imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year; or
2. Fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which
fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos; or
o Example:

3. Both imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year
and Fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check
which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos.

D. Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficiency of Funds by the Issuer of

Worthless Check
The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within
ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge
of such insufficiency of funds or credit 
- Prima facie – accepted as correct unless proven otherwise
- Check should be banked within 90 days to use this evidence if not, such cannot
be used as evidence
- Remedy: Issuer is given 5 banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor to
make the full payment of the check so the case will not push through
o Issuer will be able to negotiate with the holder of the check

E. Evidence or Defense to destroy prima facie evidence of knowledge of

insufficiency of funds by the Issuer of Worthless checks
The maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5) banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
- Problem of BP 22: Civil accept is included and separate case cannot be filed (free
lawyer but there is filing fee (% of the amount of check so holder will not give
the biggest amount [paid in separate checks]) to be paid by complainant so
useless to pay a big filing fee the issuer will just be imprisoned for 30 days)
F. Duty of Drawee Bank
It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to pay the same to the
holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written, printed, or stamped in plain
language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's dishonor or refusal to
pay the same: Provided, That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such
drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or
refusal. In all prosecutions under this Act, the introduction in evidence of any unpaid
and dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon
or attached thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie evidence
of the making or issuance of said check, and the due presentment to the drawee for
payment and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored for the
reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on such dishonored check.
Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the
notice that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in
full of such check, if such be the fact.

- If the check is dishonored, bank should stamp it with NSF no sufficient funds
- Drawee shall state in the notice that there was no sufficient balance (THIS IS
IMP)ORTANT otherwise the person who will not do this will be an accomplice
[obstruction of justice])
- Some issuers ask the bank managers not to allow encashment

G. Credit Construed
The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or
understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.

H. Evidence Required for Violation of BP 22

1. To prove violation of BP 22 or for conviction of crime of BP 22 – Proof beyond
reasonable doubt
o Innocent unless proved without reasonable doubt (imprisonment)
2. To prove civil damages on civil action involving BP 22 – Preponderance of
evidence
o Can only be penalized through fine and not imprisonment
3. To sue or to file a case for violation of BP 22 – Probable cause or Prima Facie
evidence
 o Filing a case and the evidence will only be probable cause

I. Prosecution for Violation of BP 22 (Requirement of Receipt of Notice of

Dishonor by Maker or Drawer)
Failure to establish that a written notice of dishonor was actually received by the maker
or drawer of the check is a ground for an acquittal. Numerous BP 22 cases have been
dismissed and/ or have resulted in the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the
prosecution failed to establish that the accused had actually received a notice of
dishonor.
o Notice of dishonor is very important in order that the case will continue
o Actual receipt of notice of dishonor is difficult because issuers usually hide

First, the prosecution in a BP 22 case must establish that (a) notice of dishonor was
sent to the issuer of the dishonored check and (b) that the same was actually received.
A notice of dishonor may be sent to the maker or drawer of the dishonored check by
(1) by personal service upon the issuer or (2) by registered mail. If the notice of
dishonor is sent by registered mail, the fact of sending the notice of dishonor is
established by the registry receipt, the registry return card, and an affidavit executed
by the person who mailed the notice of dishonor detailing the circumstances of the
mailing.

As to establishing actual receipt, the prosecution must also prove that the signature
appearing on the registry return card or notice of dishonor, in case of personal service,
belongs to that of the issuer of the dishonored check or, at the very least, to his duly
authorized agent. In the latter case, the prosecution must establish the capacity and
authority of such person as agent. An illegible signature, such as when a recipient
merely signs his/ her initials on the registry return card or notice of dishonor, as the
case may be, does not prove that the issuer actually received the notice of dishonor. It
is also crucial that the registry return card or the notice of dishonor indicate the date it
was received in order to fix the start of the five (5) day period within which the maker
or drawer of the check must pay or make arrangements for the payment of the amount
of the check.

The notice of dishonor may be sent to the office of the maker or drawer of the
dishonored check but he must receive the notice personally or through his authorized
agent. A corporation or an officer of a corporation that receives a notice of dishonor
addressed to one of its employees has no obligation to forward the notice to the
employee concerned. Thus, such receipt is not the receipt contemplated by BP 22. A
notice of dishonor may also be sent to the residence of the maker or drawer of the
dishonored check and received by him/her, the housemaids or houseboys who are
deemed to have a special power-of-attorney to receive mail in behalf of the addressee,
or any member of the family of sufficient age or discretion). Notably, the notice of
dishonor may be sent to, and received by, the maker or drawer of the dishonored check
wherever he may be found as long as the fact and date of receipt are established.

J. Differences between BP 22 and Estafa

Estafa and Violation of Bouncing Checks Law, how do they differ?
- BP22 covered by special penal law, estafa is covered by Art. 315
- BP22 is mala prohibita, estafa is mala in se
- BP22 good faith is not a defense, good faith is a defense
- BP22 damage is not a crime, estafa there must be damage
In the Philippines, B.P. 22, commonly referred to as the Bouncing Checks Law, and
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are the laws that penalize the issuance of
bouncing checks and Estafa, respectively. Cases that violate these laws may narrate the
same facts, they differ, however, with the causes of action.
B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law is a special penal law that penalizes the act of
making, drawing, and issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit. As
discussed above, this law specifically punishes acts, to wit: (1) the making or drawing
and issuing a check knowing at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient
funds; or (2) the failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain credit to cover the full
amount of the check. The violation of this law is a crime mala prohibita as the acts
stipulated are prohibited by a special penal law.
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the act of Estafa or swindling which is
committed by any person by means of the following: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through any
fraudulent means. The specified means of committing Estafa laid down certain acts
which further clarify the violation.

First, any person committing Estafa with unfaithfulness, with abuse of confidence, or by
taking undue advantage of the signature in blank will be penalized under this law.
Furthermore, committing Estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts includes
the use of fictitious name; falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, or business or imaginary transactions; altering the quality,
fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business; pretending to have
bribed any government employee; postdating or issuing a check without having funds
or having insufficient funds; or obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation
without paying therefor, with intent to defraud; obtaining credit at establishments by
use of any false pretense; or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without
paying.

Lastly, inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document; resorting to some
fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game; or removing, concealing or
destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other
papers are the fraudulent acts which are also punishable.
For many years, checks, or the issuance thereof, have become a vital instrument for
individuals, businesses, and other entities to facilitate a smoother flow of commercial
transactions. This commercial innovation has made it easier for some individuals to
secure a loan. However, since it is not really difficult to get hold of a check, it has also
become susceptible to abuse. There are persons who knowingly issue worthless checks
to secure or pay an obligation or for some other purposes. Consequently, these checks
will bounce.

Currently, there are two laws that penalize the issuance of bouncing checks in the
Philippines, to wit: Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and B.P. 22.
Although Estafa and B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law cases may originate from a
similar set of facts, they, however, present different causes of action. Under the
affected laws, these causes of action are considered distinct and independent from each
other; thus, filing both Estafa and B.P. 22 against a person, arising from the same set
of facts, does not necessarily violate the rule on double jeopardy. Estafa is a crime
against property while a violation of B.P. 22 constitutes a crime against public interest.

Thus, Estafa and B.P. 22 may coincide. The former is committed when a person,
employing any of the modes enumerated under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
defrauds another. One of the means of committing Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC
is by deceit through the issuance of bouncing checks.
On the other hand, the violation of B.P. 22 is committed when the offender or the
maker of the check issues the same with knowledge that the fund in the account to
which the check will be drawn against is insufficient. Such knowledge of insufficiency of
funds is presumed by the law.

A check, although technically not a legal tender, is nowadays used as a substitute for
cash. The issuance of checks makes business dealings faster and more convenient. It
allows for transactions, especially those involving large sums, to proceed without the
need of physically giving money. However, this commercial instrument has been and is
still being abused by certain individuals. Such actions have a negative impact on the
integrity of banking and financial transactions in the country. This consequently
becomes inimical to public interest.

The enactment of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Check Law was a means for the government
to address said issue and repress the practice of some people of issuing worthless
checks or those that are dishonored when presented to the drawee bank.
Example of BP22: Creditor issued debt to debtor of 10,000 cash to be paid after 1
month. The debtor then issued a check after 1 month in payment of 10,000. The check
was insufficient
o BP22 because the debtor was given debt (no fraud since creditor really gave the
debtor debt and no assurance that the check will not bounce)
Example of Estafa: A seller of an iphone is selling it for 100,000. The buyer issued a
check stating that the check is funded. The check then bounces.
o Estafa because the seller was tricked by the buyer since there was assurance
that the check was funded; hence the delivery of the cellphone
- Some cases of BP22 are turned into estafa cases to avoid filing fees; however,
the motif is important (issuing bouncing check to pay debt is BP22, but to get
something in return is estafa)

Definition Under the law

B.P. 22 is a special law that makes the mere act of issuing worthless or bum checks a
crime, mala prohibita, regardless if they were made as deposit, guarantee, or evidence
of pre-existing debt. Thus, it penalizes the making, drawing, and issuance of checks
that are subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds.
The law is broad enough to include, within its coverage, the making and issuing of a
check by one who has no account with a bank, or where such account was already
closed when the check was presented for payment. (Resterio v. People, G.R. No.
177438, [September 24, 2012], 695 PHIL 693-710)

Elements of the Offense

B.P. 22 punishes two acts, to wit: (1) the making or drawing and issuing a check
knowing at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds; or (2) the
failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain credit to cover the full amount of the
check.
The elements that constitute the first punishable act under this law are the following:

1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or
for value;
2. That the person knows that at the time of issue, he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check upon
its presentment; and
3. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or creditor or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to
stop payment.
The elements that constitute the second punishable act under this law are the
following:

1. That a person has sufficient funds with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check;
 2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing on
the face of the check;
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank; and
4. After receiving such written notice and demand refuses or fails to pay the
value of the check within five (5) banking days.

It is to be noted that in the second punishable act under B.P. 22, the ninety (90) days
provided therein is not one of the elements that constitutes the crime penalized
thereunder. Pursuant to current banking practices, the reasonable time within which the
maker, drawer, or issuer of the check has the duty to maintain a sufficient fund balance
is 180 days or 6 months. However, the maintenance of sufficient funds for a period of
90 days under the law is essential in order to rebut the law’s presumption of knowledge
of such insufficiency of funds to cover the check.

Thus, if a check was presented after 90 days but before 180 days from the date written
on its face, and was dishonored on the ground that the maker, drawer, or issuer’s
failure to maintain a sufficient balance, such maker, drawer, or issuer would still be
liable for violation of B.P. 22.

Practical Example
X wanted to buy a car for a really long time. Since he could not afford to buy a brand-
new car, he offered to buy one of Y’s car for P200,000.00. Y agreed to sell X his oldest
car. Trusting his friend X, Y already delivered the car to the former in exchange for a
dated check with the amount of P200,000.00. Since it is already 7 o’clock in the
evening, Y was only able to encash said check on the following day after delivery of the
car. However, upon presentment of the check to the drawee bank, the same was
dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds.

In this example, X committed a violation of B.P. 22 particularly the first mode of

commission thereunder: that is the making or drawing and issuing of a check knowing
at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds. In this particular
example, X may also be held liable for the crime of Estafa by means of deceit.
- Holder can file both BP22 (bouncing check) and estafa (fraud since issuer had
knowledge that he had no sufficient fund)

C is in the business of buying and selling palay. In order to avoid handling large sums
of money and to reduce the probability of getting robbed, C never pays in cash. He only
issues checks as payment for the palay he buys. F came to C’s palay buying station
asking how much the latter would buy F’s palay. Seeing that the quality of said palay is
good, C offered to pay F P18 per kilo. Not satisfied, F negotiated for a better price of
P21 per kilo. C agreed to buy said palay for P3 above the current market price on the
condition that the check he would issue F as payment would be dated three months
after delivery of palay. Amenable to C’s proposal, F delivered his palay to C’s warehouse
on April 1, 2021. In return, C issued to F a check post-dated on July 1, 2021. Although
C’s account had sufficient funds when he issued F the said check, due to the poor
management of his warehouse, a bulk of the palay he stored therein subsequently
changed color and obtained a bad smell. Since C wanted to cut his loss, he sold the
said palay for a price lower than the price for which he bought them. C even agreed to
a later payment in exchange for the palay. Because of such loss, C’s account
subsequently became insufficiently funded. Come July 1, 2021, F went to the bank for
the encashment of the check issued by C. However, this was dishonored by the drawee
bank because of insufficiency of funds. Furious of what just happened, F sent to C a
demand letter for the payment of the value of the check that was dishonored. C
promised to pay F the said amount; however, more than 5 banking days after receipt of
the demand letter, C still failed to pay his obligation to F. In this example, C committed
a violation of B.P. 22 particularly the second mode of commission thereunder; that is
the failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain credit to cover the full amount of the
check.
- Holder can file only file BP22 since no fraud but forgot to maintain sufficient
balance to the check

Related Jurisprudence
In the case of People vs Chua, the Court held that NATY is liable under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 for issuing four replacement checks. The law makes the mere act of issuing a
worthless check punishable as a special offense. The gravamen of the offense under
this law is the act of issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
presentment for payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a
malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and
inimical to public welfare. It is undisputed that the four replacement checks in question
were issued by NATY and that these were all dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.
(People v. Chua, G.R. No. 130632, [September 28, 1999], 373 PHIL 962-976)

In the case of Tan vs Mendez, Jr., Petitioners were convicted for violation of BP Blg. 22.
The present case is an appeal whereby petitioners alleged payment through
compensation or offset to preclude their prosecution. The Court held in this case
that Petitioner Marciano admitted that he drew the subject check as payment for the
fuel and oil products of respondents. He knew at that time that there were no sufficient
funds to cover the check because he had uncollected receivables. The check was thus
dishonored upon presentment to the bank for payment. The law has made the mere act
of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being
deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. The gravamen of the offense under
this law is the act of issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
presentment for payment. Thus, even if there had been payment, through
compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of B.P.
22. We find that no reversible error was committed by the courts a quo in finding
petitioners guilty of violation of B.P. 22. (Tan v. Mendez, Jr., G.R. No. 138669, [June 6,
2002], 432 PHIL 760-774)

In the more recent case of San Mateo vs People, the Court granted San Mateo’s petition
for certiorari and acquitted her in this wise: Since there is insufficient proof that San
Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the
insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot convict her
with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22. Nevertheless, San Mateo’s acquittal does
not entail the extinguishment of her civil liability for the dishonored checks. An acquittal
based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil
damages. For this reason, the trial court’s directive for San Mateo to pay the civil
liability in the amount of P134,275.00 representing the total value of the 11 checks plus
12% interest per annum from the time the said sum became due and demandable until
fully paid, stands. (San Mateo v. People, G.R. No. 200090, [March 6, 2013], 705 PHIL
630-640)
- Dismissed since no proof of actual receipt of notice (proof without reasonable
doubt was not attined) but still liable for civil damages

What is the felony of Estafa under the Revised Penal Code?

Estafa is also known as Swindling and is punishable in the Philippines as stated in the
Revised Penal Code. Estafa can be committed by different forms, to wit: (1) Estafa with
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) Estafa by means of deceit; and (3) Estafa
through fraudulent means. The penalty for Estafa was amended by RA 10951 wherein
the basis for fines is the increased amount of fraud.

Definition under the law

Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, Estafa or Swindling is defined as to be
committed by any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:
With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

 Estafa with Unfaithfulness

 Estafa with Abuse of Confidence
 Estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature in blank
Estafa by means of Deceit:

 By using a fictitious name; By falsely pretending to possess power, influence,

qualifications, property, credit, agency, or business or imaginary transactions;
or By means of other similar deceits
  By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or
business
 By pretending to have bribed any government employee
 By postdating or issuing a check without having funds or having insufficient
funds
 By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation without paying
therefor, with intent to defraud; Obtaining credit at establishments by use of
any false pretense; or By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of
his baggage after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation
therein without paying
Estafa through fraudulent means:

 By inducing another to sign any document

 By resorting to some fraudulent practice to ensure success in gambling
 By removing, concealing, or destroying documents
Elements of the Offense
In General, elements of Estafa or Swindling are: (1) The accused defrauded another by
abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; (2) Damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third persons; (3) Damage or
prejudice may consist of: (a) the offended party being deprived of his money of
property as a result of the defraudation; (b) disturbance of property rights; or (3)
temporary prejudice.

For the first form of committing estafa which is the Estafa with unfaithfulness or
abuse of confidence, it was further subdivided into three and let us discuss each of
their elements for better understanding. For the Estafa with unfaithfulness,
elements are: (1) The offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value;
(2) He alters its substance, quantity or quality; and (3) Damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third persons. On the other
hand, for Estafa with abuse of confidence, elements are: (1) Money goods or other
personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to
return the same; (2) There be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) Such
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) There
be demand made by the offended party to the offender. Lastly, for Estafa by taking
undue advantage of the signature in blank , elements are: (1) The paper with the
signature of the offended party be in blank; (2) The offended party should have
delivered it to the offender; (3) Above the signature of the offended party a document
is written by the offender without authority to do so; and (4) The document so written
creates a liability of, or causes damage to the offended party or any third person.
In the second form of Estafa or Swindling which is Estafa by means of deceit, it can
be committed when the following requisite are present: (1) There must be a false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) Such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (3) The offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his
money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means;
and (4) As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

For the last form of Estafa or Swindling, the Estafa through fraudulent means can
further be committed in different manners. To discuss each, for Estafa by inducing
another to sign any document  to be committed, the following elements must be
present: (1) That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document; (2) That
deceit be employed to make him sign the document; (3) That the offended party
personally signed the document; and (4) The prejudice be caused. Another is Estafa
by removing, concealing or destroying documents , it is present when: (1) There
be court record, office files, documents or any other papers; (2) The offender removed,
concealed, or destroyed any of them; and (3) The offender had intent to defraud
another.

Practical Example
X borrowed Y’s white car for the former’s wedding this coming weekend. When the date
passed and came Monday, Y asked X for the return of his car. X does not return the
white car and sells it to another person to add his pocket money for his honeymoon. A
committed the crime of Estafa, specifically the first form which is Estafa with
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence (Article 315 No. 1, RPC).

C purchases iPhone 12 Pro Max worth P70,000 from D. C issues a check in payment of
the item he bought. D agrees and allows C to take the phone home. If the check
bounces, C may be liable for Estafa, particularly the Estafa by means of deceit (Article
315 No. 2, RPC). Suppose that before the check was encashed, C takes it back and
issues a different check and when the later check was encashed, the account did not
have sufficient funds. The crime now will fall under BP 22 because the later check was
issued for payment of a pre-existing debt.
- The check, in order for estafa to be filed, is the sole reason why there was
transaction (can file both estafa and BP22 for the bouncing of the check)
- But if mere payment of debt BP22 only since no more deceit anymore (good
faith is a defense for estafa)
Related Jurisprudence
The crime of Estafa or Swindling was mentioned in strings of jurisprudence under the
Philippines. Some of which are as follows.

In People v. Reyes, the Court ruled that for Estafa under the above provision to
prosper, the issuance of the check must have been the inducement for the other party
to part with his money or property, viz: “To constitute estafa under this provision, the
act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient
cause of the defraudation; as such, it should be either prior to or simultaneous with the
act of fraud. The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended
party because of the issuance of the check, whether postdated or not. It must be
shown that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with
his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the other party.
Stated otherwise, the check should have been issued as an inducement for the
surrender by the party deceived of his money or property and not in payment of a pre-
existing obligation.”

More recently, in People v. Tibayan, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the
two incorporators of the Tibayan Group Investment Company, Inc. (TGICI) be
convicted of multiple counts of Syndicated Estafa and sentencing them to life
imprisonment for each count. “As in the other fraudulent investment schemes, the
private complainants, in that case, were enticed to invest in TGICI due to the offer of
high-interest rates, as well as the assurance that they will recover their investments.
After parting with their monies, the private complainants received a Certificate of Share
and post-dated checks, representing the amount of the principal investment and the
corresponding monthly interest earnings. The checks, however, were dishonored upon
encashment, and the TGICI office closed down without private complainants having
been paid. The investors were then constrained to file criminal complaints against the
incorporators and directors of TGICI.”

To differentiate the crime of Estafa from Theft, the Supreme Court made a discussion in
the case of Ricafort v. Fernan: “In general, the crime of estafa is distinguished from
that of theft by the manner in which the offender in each case acquires possession of
the property. The estafador receives the possession of the property, while the thief
takes, without the owner’s consent, the possession of the latter’s property. There are,
however, instances where even if the property misappropriated was received by the
offender, the misappropriation will constitute theft, and not estafa. In such cases,
distinction should be made whether the offender, on receiving the property, acquired:
(1) the material possession alone or (2) the material and juridical possession, or (3) the
material and juridical possession plus the ownership of the property. Where only the
material possession is transferred, conversion of the property gives rise to the crime of
theft; where both material and juridical possessions are transferred, misappropriation of
the property would constitute estafa; and where in addition to the material possession,
the ownership of the property is transferred, misappropriation would only give rise to a
civil obligation (People vs. Aquino, 36 Off. Gaz., 1886). For example, an agent of the
public authorities who, in the performance of his duties, and because of the lack of
registration papers, takes possession of cattle in the presence of the cattleman charged
with the care thereof, without any opposition or protest on the part of said cattleman or
on the part of the possessor or owner of the cattle seized and appropriating the value
thereof to his own use, without reporting the case to his superior officers or to the
competent authorities, constitute the crime of estafa (U. S. vs. Dacanay, Phil. 617).”

Is bouncing check a criminal case in the Philippines?

B.P. 22 is a Special Penal Law. Thus, violation of which is essentially a crime against
public interest because it degrades the integrity of the country’s banking and financial
system. However, like other crimes, there also exists a civil aspect to it. Although
violation of this law constitutes a crime, acquittal of the accused based on reasonable
doubt does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability to the other party.
Bouncing check, as a general rule, constitutes a crime that is punished either by estafa
under Article. 315 of the RPC or by B.P. 22 or by both. However, under B.P. 22, once a
check bounces and the drawer or maker was informed of such dishonor of the check
through a written notice and there is proof that he received said notice, he is given the
chance to pay the value of the check within 5 banking days from his receipt of the
notice. In such a case, the payment of the value of the said check before the filing of
the criminal charge is valid defense on the part of the drawer or maker.

How much is the penalty for bounced checks in the Philippines?

B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law provides the penalty for bounced checks in the
Philippines. Any person who will be found liable for bouncing checks shall be penalized
with imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year, or by a fine of
not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not
exceed P200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

What will happen to bounced checks?

Bounced checks are stamped by the bank indicating such insufficiency of funds against
which the checks were drawn. These checks can be presented for encashment again to
the drawee bank or redeposited to any bank for up to three times. However, upon the
check’s dishonor for the third time due to insufficiency of funds, it cannot be
redeposited anymore and becomes totally worthless.
The bounced checks serve as pieces of evidence material to the filing of a criminal case
against the maker, drawer, or issuer of such checks as the case may be. They also
serve as basis for the penalty to be imposed upon the accused if he is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt by the court, as well as to determine the amount of the
accused’s civil liability. As previously mentioned, however, even if the accused is
acquitted based on reasonable doubt, he may still be held civilly liable.
How do you prove Estafa?
Any person may be liable for committing the crime of Estafa if he defrauds another by
any means provided under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
In the case of People vs. Juego (298 SCRA 22, 33 (1998)), the elements of the crime of
Estafa are: 1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; 2)
such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; 3) the offended party must
have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was
induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means; and 4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage.
Elements of Estafa
1. False pretense
2. There should be damage (caused by the fraudulent act)

Can you be jailed for Estafa?

Yes, a person can be imprisoned if he will be found liable for committing Estafa.
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides the penalty for the crime of Estafa. The
law provides four classifications of penalty for the crime.
First, the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty
years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or
reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
Second, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the
amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
Third, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
Fourth, by arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200
pesos, provided that fraud be committed by (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through any
fraudulent means.
However, these amounts have been recently amended by Section 85 of Republic Act
N0. 10951.

Issue:
1. Sometimes holders are hard to negotiate with (gives hard conditions for the
BP22 case to not continue)
If maker (issuer) is corporation:
- Whoever is the signatory (issuer) will be punished

How do you prove that there is knowledge?

- If the check encashed by the holder bounces within 90 days from the issuance, it
will create a rebuttable presumption that issuer had knowledge; hence, no need
to prove because there is legal presumption already
- Issuer should pay within 5 days upon receipt of dishonor in order for the case to
be dismissed

Estafa
- Hard to prove because there is a need of fraud (deceit) for it to be applicable
- If there is proof of good faith, no more estafa
- If payment is made, no more estafa since no more damage

Bounced Accommodation Checks

- Whoever is the signatory (issuer) will be punished

Checks not covered by BP22

- Manager’s Check and Cashier’s Check will never bounce since guaranteed by the
bank