You are on page 1of 1

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS NOTES

BASED ON AGBAYANIS BOOK AND ATTY. MERCADOS LECTURES


Page 182 of 190


BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D BATCH 2010
presented to the drawee bank for payment within a period of 90
days

ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION
1: BP 22
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check.
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for
value.
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds
4. In or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment.
5. That the 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 drawee, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment.

For the first act, the petitioner averred that the first element is not present
for he didnt issue the checks for value or for account. This was
established by the trial and appellate courts to be false and unsupported by
evidence.

184 NAGRAMPA V. PEOPLE
386 SCRA 412

FACTS:
The sales manager of Fedcor brought into the plant Nagrampa in order for
the latter to purchase an excavation machine. He made a downpayment
and for the balance, he issued a postdated check. The checks were drawn
against Security Bank. Upon the guarantee of the salesman, the
equipment was delivered. However, when the checks were presented for
payment, they were dishonored on the ground that the account against
which it is drawn has long been closed. The company notified petitioner
but it still failed to make payments. This prompted the company to file a
case for estafa and violation of BP22 against Nagrampa. The trial court
and appellate court both found him guilty.

HELD:
Petitioner admitted the issuance of the two checks but he would like to
argue that the same had been presented more than the 90-day period
stated in the law. This is to no avail though since the 90-day period is for
the presumption of knowledge to arise. It is not an essential element of
the offenses committed within the purview of BP22.

In this case, the checks were presented within 6 months from the issuance
of the checks and wouldnt therefore have been considered stale had
petitioners account had been existing. Although the presumption of
knowledge didnt arise, such knowledge was sufficiently proven during the
trial upon the testimony of one of the banks employees.

Likewise, for estafa, it is the same. All the elements were present. It was
the allegation however of accused that there was no damage done against
the company. He even averred that there was a return of the equipment.
Nonetheless, damage contemplated in estafa may consist in the offended
party being deprived of his money or property as a result of the
defraudation, disturbance in property rights, or temporary prejudice. In
this case, the deprivation of property was apparent. The backhoe was
delivered precisely to the accused because of his downpayment and the
issuance of the checks.

185 TY V. PEOPLE
439 SCRA 220

FACTS:
Tys mother was confined in Manila Doctors. As the daughter, she signed
the acknowledgement of responsibility for payment. Her sister was also
subsequently confined in the same hospital. She then drew promissory
notes, promising to pay her obligations to the hospital. She issued 7
checks and these were thereafter deposited on their due dates. But these
checks were dishonored for the account against which they were drawn
against had been closed. The hospital then sent demand letters but to no
avail. This prompted it to file a complaint for 7 counts of violations of
BP22.

HELD:
Ty doesnt deny to have issued the checks in issue. She claims that the
issuance was under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater
injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury.

It seems that all the factual findings are not disputed except for the
allegation of uncontrollable fear or injury. Nonetheless, this is insufficient
to exempt the accused of her liabilities. For uncontrollable fear or injury
to become an exempting circumstance
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. The fear must be real and imminent
3. The fear of injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed