Bouncing Checks

2.1 Requisites to be Liable under Batas Pambansa Blg 22

So generally, there are two offenses punished under BP 22, namely: 1) the making or drawing and
issuance of a check when at the time of its issuance the issuer knows that he does not have sufficient funds,
and 2) failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check.

2.1.1 Checks without sufficient funds

Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, 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, 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, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty
days but not more than one (1) year or by a 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 both such fine and imprisonment at
the discretion of the court.

2.1.2 Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds

If the bank refuses to pay the check because of insufficiency of funds when it is presented within 90
days from the date of the check, it shall be used as evidence that the issuer knows that he has insufficient
funds, unless he pays the holder the amount of the check or makes arrangements for its payment within 5
banking days after he received a notice that the check was dishonored.

2.1.3 Duty of Drawer

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.

2.1.4 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.

2.2 Comparison with Estafa (Art. 315 {2] (d)

One manner of committing estafa is by employment of deceit, deception may be in the form of
issuance of a check in payment of an obligation when the issuer knew that he had no funds or that his
funds are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
 In this situation, the issuance of the check should be before or instantaneous with a transaction.
If however, the check was issued in payment of an already existing obligation, then there really is no
estafa but only a civil liability.

If the drawer of the check was not able to pay or make arrangements for payment of the check
within three (3) days from the time he receives a notice of dishonor, then it is prima facie evidence that
he employed deceit in the issuance of the check.

A good example would be the case of People of the Philippines vs. Virginia Baby P. Montaner,
G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011. In this case, accused Virginia Montaner drew and issued ten
postdated checks in exchange for P50,000.00 from Reynaldo Solis. However, when Solis presented the
checks to Prudential Bank, they were dishonored because the account was already closed. So, Reynaldo
sent a demand letter to Virginia, however Virgina still did not make payment. In this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that Virginia was liable for estafa.

It is evident that the issuance of the postdated check was done at the same time that the
P50,000.00 cash was given to the issuer; this was the simultaneous transaction which led to the issuance
of the check. Then, when Solis demanded payment from Virginia, the latter did not comply; this was
prima facie evidence that Virginia was in bad faith when she issued the check. With all the elements of
estafa present, then the issuer should be held liable.

BP 22

In BP 22, there is no need that the issuance of a check be prior to or simultaneous with a
transaction, it is enough that a worthless check was issued on account or for value, with the issuer
aware that he has no funds with the bank or his funds are insufficient to pay the value of the check.

In estafa, three days are given for the offender to pay or make arrangements for payment of the
check, in BP 22, the drawer is given five (5) days after receiving notice of dishonor within which to pay or
make arrangements for payment.

Estafa and BP 22

It should be noted that when one is charged with violation of BP 22, he can still be charged with
any offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code. So, it is possible that one can be liable for both
offenses with just one act of issuing a check.