You are on page 1of 77

How to Prevent, Prosecute &

Collect BOUNCING CHECKS


Judge Marlo B. Campanilla

Slide 2

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Malum In Se
It is wrong in nature

Malum Prohibitum
It is wrong because it is prohibited
by law

Slide 3

ESTAFA THROUGH ISSUANCE OF


BOUNCING CHECK
1. Deceit
a. Knowledge of insufficiency of the funds or credit.
At the time of issuance or postdating of check
b. Implied or express representation of sufficiency
of funds
Presumption of false pretense
Good faith is a defense
Exerting efforts to pay
Previous good transactions

Slide 4

ESTAFA THROUGH ISSUANCE OF


BOUNCING CHECK
2. Damage
Dishonor of the check due to insufficiency of funds
3. Causal connection between deceit and damage
Only motive for parting money or goods
Check was not issued to cover pre-existing
obligation

Slide 5

ESTAFA THROUGH FALSE PRETENSE


1. Deceit
Representation of authenticity of check,
complete signatories, no stop-payment

2. Damage
Dishonor of the check due to forgery etc.

3. Causal connection between deceit and


damage

Slide 6

BP BLG. 22
PURPOSE OF PUNISHING CHECK
1. To prevent the proliferation of worthless
checks in the mainstream of daily
business
2. To ensure the stability and commercial
value of check as a virtual substitute for
money

Slide 7

MALUM PROHIBITUM
Good faith is NOT a defense
Unlike in estafa, exerting efforts to pay
previous good transactions is not a
defense

Slide 8

FIRST OFFENSE
UNDER FIRST PARAGRAPH OF
SECTION 1

Slide 9

I. ISSUANCE OF, DRAWING OR


MAKING CHECK WITH
INSUFFICIENT FUNDS OR
CREDIT TO APPLY IN
ACCOUNT OR FOR VALUE

Slide 10

1. Issuance
a. Undelivered check
Specify the check in the receipt
b. Stolen or missing check
Ching vs. Nicdao, G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007
Burden of proof that the check was stolen
Caca vs. CA, G.R. No. 116962, July 7, 1997
c. Postdated check(constructive delivery upon maturity)

2. Makes - Borrowed check - Ruiz vs. People, G.R. No.


160893, November 18, 2005

Slide 11

3. Consideration
a. Presumed valuable consideration (Section 24 NIL)
Presumption cannot be overcome by bare denial
Bayani vs. People, G.R. No. 154947, August 11,
2004
b. Wrong computation, not a defense
There must be total lack of consideration
Lunaria vs. People, G.R. No. 160127, November 11,
2008

Slide 12

3. Consideration
c. Exorbitant interest
Validity or invalidity of interest is not determinative
Jose vs. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, June 30, 2008
d. Annulment of sale
Obligation subsisting at the time of issuance of check
Annulment is not determinative
Umali vs. IAC, G.R. No. 63198, June 21, 1990

Slide 13

4. Magno case (Utilitarian theory)

a. The essence of the penal system is to protect the


society from actual or potential wrongdoer (Magno vs.
The Hon. CA, G.R. No. 96132, June 26, 1992
Unjust enrichment
No consideration
b. Payment of the future share in the partnership
(subject to sale the goods and collection)
Idos vs. CA, G.R. No. 110782, September 25, 1998
c. Payment of flour and baking materials
Dico vs. CA, G.R. No. 116566, April 14, 1999

Slide 14

II. KNOWLEDGE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS
OR CREDIT AT THE TIME OF
ISSUANCE OF THE
CHECK

Slide 15

Lack of knowledge of insufficiency


1. Transacting with husband
Co-signatory, pre-signed check
No testimony as to the participation of wife
No notice of dishonor
Dingle vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-75243, March 16, 1987
2. Pre-signed corporate check
Co-signatory, pre-signed check
Marketing employee, duty does not include the
funding
Not involved in the transaction
No notice of dishonor
Lao vs. CA, G.R. No 119178, June 20, 1997

Slide 16

3. Pre-signed check
Treasurer, duty to fund check
Lack of involvement in the negotiation
Llamado vs. CA, G.R. No. 99032, March 26, 1997

4. Proprietor not co-signatories


Lao and Dingle not applicable
Dy vs. People, G.R. No. 158312, November 14, 2008
5. Knowledge of payee - Not material in BP 22
Deceit is not an element
Rigor vs. People, G.R. No. 144887, Nov.17, 2004
Estafa - Knowledge of insufficiency by payee, defense

Slide 17

III. DISHONOR OF CHECK


DUE TO INSUFFICIENCY OF
FUNDS OR CREDIT

Slide 18

SECOND OFFENSE
UNDER FIRST PARAGRAPH
OF SECTION 1

Slide 19

1. ISSUANCE OF, DRAWING OR MAKING


CHECK WITH INSUFFICIENT FUNDS OR
CREDIT TO APPLY ON ACCOUNT OR FOR
VALUE
2. KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF
FUNDS OR CREDIT AT THE TIME OF
ISSUANCE OF THE CHECK

Slide 20

3. DISHONOR OF CHECK DUE TO STOPPAYMENT


a. Contractual obligation to dishonor the check
(Aquino)
b. Duty to disclose check is funded or unfunded
Closed account, Drawn Against Insufficient Funds
(DAIF), Drawn Against Uncleared Deposits (DAUD)
c. Credit line of P25 m
Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 141466, January 19, 2001
d. Estafa - Intention to stop payment at the time of
encashment Sales vs. The Hon. CA, G.R. No.
L-47817 Aug.29, 1988

Slide 21

4. INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS OR CREDIT

5. NO VALID REASON FOR THE STOPPAYMENT ORDER

Wrong payee (Reyes)


Failure to deliver (Aquino)
Exercise of right to suspend payment

Slide 22

PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE
OF INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS
OR CREDIT

Slide 23

1. PRESENTMENT OF CHECK WITHIN 90 DAYS

Presentment beyond 90 days, incomplete


defense
Bautista vs. CA, G.R. No. 143375,
July 6, 2001
Account was closed for more than 4 years
Nagrampa vs. People, G.R. No.146211,
Aug. 6, 2002
Request not to encash
Arceo vs. People, G.R. No. 142641,
July 17, 2006

Slide 24

2. SENDING OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR


Lack of notice dishonor, complete defense
No presumption
Preventing drawer from averting criminal
action
3. FAILURE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE
CHECK OR HAVE ARRANGMENT FOR
FULL PAYMENT BY THE DRAWEE BANK
WITHIN 5 BANKING DAYS FROM
RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR

Slide 25

THIRD OFFENSE
UNDER THE FIRST AND SECOND
PARAGRAPHGS
1. ISSUANCE OF CHECK WITH SUFFICIENT
FUNDS
2. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE SUFFICIENCY
OF FUNDS OR CREDIT FOR 90 DAYS
3. DISHONOR OF CHECK DUE TO DAIF

Slide 26

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CRIMES


UNDER THE FIRST AND SECOND PARAGRAPHS
FIRST PARAGRAPH

SECOND PARAGRAPH

ISSUANCE OF CHECK
WITH INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS
ISSUANCE OF BUM
CHECK
PRESENTMENT OF
CHECK WITHIN 90
DAYS NOT ELEMENT

ISSUANCE OF CHECK
WITH SUFFICIENT
FUNDS
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN
SUFFICIENCY OF
FUNDS
PRESENTMENT OF
CHECK WITHIN 90
DAYS - ELEMENT

Slide 27

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTAFA AND


VIOLATION OF BP BLG. 22
ESTAFA

VIOLATION OF BP BLG. 22

DECEIT AND DAMAGE ELEMENTS


MALUM IN SE
PRESENTMENT WITHIN 90
DAYS - NOT REQUIRED
KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME OF
POSTDATING OR ISSUANCE

DECEIT AND DAMAGE NOT


ELEMENTS
MALUM PROHIBITUM
PRESENTMENT WITHIN 90
DAYS

NOTICE OF DISHONOR
DISPENSABLE
ORAL OR WRITTEN
3 DAYS

ONE CRIME INVOLVING


CHECKS

IMPORTANT

KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME OF


ISSUANCE
NOTICE OF DISHONOR
INDISPENSABLE
WRITTEN
5 BANKING DAYS

MULTIPLE CRIMES INVOLVING


CHECKS

Slide 28

CHECKS
1. Foreign bank and dollar account issued in the
Philippines
De Villa vs. CA, G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991
2. Restricted or Cross check
Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 08738, June 17, 1994

3. NOW (Negotiable Order of Withdrawal)


instrument
Non-negotiable instrument
Not payable to cash, bearer or endorsee
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, March 31,
2005

Slide 29

4. Fake check

5. Postdated check
Yu Oh vs. CA, G.R. No. 125297, June 6, 2003
6. Cashiers or managers check
7. Accommodation check
a) Defense in estafa but not in BP Blg. 22
b) Against a holder in due course not a defense
Ruiz vs. People, G.R. No. 160893, Nov. 18, 2005
Against the accommodation party defense
Burden of proof no consideration
San Pedro vs. People, G.R. No. 133297, Aug.15, 2002

Slide 30

8. Guarantee check
Defense in estafa but not in BP Blg. 22
Meriz vs. People, G.R. No. 134498,
November 13, 2001
Alonto vs. People, G.R. No. 140078,
Dec. 9, 2004
9. Check under the account of another person
10. Memorandum check
Dico vs. CA, G.R. No. 116566, April 14,1999
Defense in estafa but not in BP Blg. 22

Slide 31

11. Not intended for deposit to be shown to investor


Cueme vs. People, G.R. No. 133325, June 30, 2000
Defense in estafa but not in BP Blg. 22
12. Check in payment of pre-existing obligations
Defense in estafa but not in BP Blg. 22

13. Blank but signed check


Practice of the lending company
Prima facie authority to fill up (Section 14, NIL)
Burden to show lack or excess of authority
Lunaria vs. People, G.R. No. 160127, Nov. 11, 2008
Ojeda vs. Orbeta, G.R. No. 142047, July 10, 2006
P210,000.00 loan - P1,600,393.00 check

Lim vs. Basco, G.R. No. 137353, July 11, 2001


Constructive delivery upon completion of the details
14. Check without consideration

Slide 32

INDORSEMENT
1. NOW instrument and cross check,
cannot be endorse
2. Not allowed by banking practice
3. Indorser can be held liable for BP 22

Slide 33

PRESENTMENT FOR ENCASHMENT OR DEPOSIT


1. Presentment of the check for encashment or deposit
indispensable
2. Second presentment for encashment or deposit
3. Presentment within 90 days

4. Presentment within 6 months


Stale dated
More than 6 month
Wong vs. CA, G.R. No. 117857, February 2, 2001
On or after 6 months for clearing
CHOM No. 96

Slide 34

CLEARING OF CHECK
1. Presentment with the drawee bank
Authenticity of signature
Sufficiency of funds
2. Presentment with depositary bank
Clearing house
Circular No. 681
Return of the check 7:30 am next day
Late funding, not feasible

Slide 35

DISHONOR OF THE CHECK


1. Duty of the bank to state the reason
for dishonor
Bank secrecy
Spurious check, unauthorized signature
Post-dated, stale-dated, validity restricted
No account, account closed
DAIF, DAUD
Stop payment, under garnishment

Slide 36

DISHONOR OF THE CHECK


2. DAIF
Insufficiency at the time of issuance and
presentment for
Automatic fund transfer
Late funding, not feasible
3. Closed Account
Comprehensive
Yu Oh vs. CA, G.R. No. 125297, June 6, 2003
Exercise of right

Sycip Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000

Slide 37

DISHONOR OF THE CHECK


4. DAUD - drawn against uncollected deposit
BSP disallows bank to honor check DAUD
General rule (no liability for estafa or BP Blg. 22)
BPI vs. Suarez, G.R. No. 167750, March 15, 2010
Should not expand the provision
Liberal Construction
Collected after five days
Dy vs. People, G.R. No. 158312, Nov.14, 2008
Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 141466, January 19, 2001
Exception
Check deposit had not been credited
Abarquez vs. CA, G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003

Slide 38

DISHONOR OF THE CHECK


5. Other reasons for dishonor
Spurious, unauthorized, stop-payment
Estafa

Slide 39

NOTICE OF DISHONOR

Slide 40

I. CONSUMATION OF CRIME
Dishonor of check
Bautista vs. CA, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001

Slide 41

II. INDISPENSABILITY OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR


1. Prevention of application of presumption
Caras vs. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 129900, October 2, 2001
2. Deprivation of right to avert prosecution
Violation of his right to due process
Sia vs. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004
Proof of knowledge of insufficiency (Closed account)
argument
Yu Oh vs. CA, G.R. No. 125297, June 6, 2003

Untenable

a. Mitigates the harshness of the law in its application


Danao vs. CA, G.R. No. 122353, June 6, 2001
b. Offer of compromise
Surrender of unlicensed firearm
King vs. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999
Marriage in rape case

Slide 42

II. REQUISITES OF NOTICE OF


DISHONOR
1.Sending notice after the dishonor

2. Notice convey information of dishonor


3. Written notice of dishonor
4. Receipt of notice of dishonor

Slide 43

SENDING AFTER DISHONOR


1. Drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the
offended party
Sia vs. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28,
2004

2. After dishonor
Dico vs. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 141669,
February 28, 2005

Slide 44

CONVEY INFORMATION OF DISHONOR


1. Notice of dishonor, not demand letter
2. Failure to describe the check
4 checks amounting to P188,400.00
Telegraph
Settlement of the bounced checks for P226,000
No numbers, dates and amount of checks
Reply letter
Does not prescribe the contents except in writting
Meriz vs. People, G.R. No. 134498, November 13,
2001
Section 96 of NIL Sufficient identification

Slide 45

3. MisdescriptionSection 95 of NIL
Vitiate the notice, misled
Practice in the office of the city prosecutor
4. Demand to pay within 3 days
Arceo vs. People, G.R. No. 142641, July 17,
2006

Slide 46

WRITTEN NOTICE OF DISHONOR


1. Estafa -Written or oral notice of dishonor
Section 96 of NIL Written or oral notice of
dishonor
2. BP Blg. 22 - Written notice of dishonor
Section 3 -shall always be explicitly stated in the
notice
Letter and spirit of the law
Strict interpretation
Domagsang v. CA, G.R. No. 139292, December 5
2000

Slide 47

3. Knowledge
Filing of collection case - 3 years before information
Admission that the check was returned due to DAIF
Circumstances are not in accordance with the manner or form
Ambito vs. People, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009

Receiving a copy of complaint affidavit

Slide 48

RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR


1. Authentication of registry receipt and registry return receipt
People vs. Ojeda, G.R. No. 104238-58, June 3, 2004
a. Signatures in the check and return card or Postman

b. Proof of sending and receipt


Registry return card, with an unauthenticated signature
Plus Denial = acquittal
Suarez vs. People, G.R. No. 172573, June, 19, 2008
c.

Delivery to the addressee or agent upon written order


Possibility of receipt by addressee or agent not proof
Unidentified signature
Chan-Azajar vs. CA, G.R. NO. 140665, November
13, 2000

Slide 49

RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR


2. Refusal to receive notice
Young vs. CA, G.R. No. 140425, March 10, 2005
Note: Most effective way to serve notice
3. Certification: Returned to sender

Proof of receipt of post office notice and refusal to claim


the mail
Present the postman and personnel in charge of claiming
mail
Speculation of hiding or sending of notice by bank not
proof
King vs. People, G.R. No 131540, December 2, 1999

Slide 50

RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR


4. Reply to demand letter - tacit admission
Meriz vs. People, G.R. No. 134498, November 13, 2001
5. Acknowledgment
Munoz vs. People, G.R. No. 162772, March 14, 2008
Using left hand to sign
6. Judicial admission
Accuseds admission
Rigor vs. People, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004
Counsels admission
Ongson vs. People, G.R. No. 156169, August 12, 2005

Slide 51

RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR


7. Telegraphic notice of dishonor
Employee of the telegram company to prove
transmittal and receipt
Marigomen vs. People, G.R. No. 153451,
May 26, 2005

8. Unknown address of the offender


After the exercise of reasonable diligence, cannot
reached the accused
Notice is dispensed with (Section 112 NIL)
Third person assured that accused is her best friend
and a good payer
Refused to give address, promise to inform accused
Yulo vs. People, G.R. No. 142762, March 4, 2005

Slide 52

RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR


9. Notice to the corporation, not notice to employee
No obligation to forward the notice
Personal responsibility, personal knowledge of
notice of dishonor
The accused is the agent of the corporation, not
the other way around
Lao v. CA, G.R. No. 119178, 20 June 1997
10. Proof of date of receipt
No way to determine when the period would
start and end
Danao vs. CA, G.R. No. 122353,
June 6, 2001

Slide 53

FIVE BANKING DAYS


GRACE PERIOD - Saturday and Sunday are not banking days
Crisologo-Jose vs. CA, G.R. No. 80599, September 15, 1989
BDO doing business on a Sunday and Saturday

1. Full payment within the period complete defense


Lina Lim Lao v. CA, 274 SCRA 572
Regardless of the strength of prosecutions evidence
Meriz vs. People, G.R. No. 134498, November 13, 2001
Before notice of dishonor
Vergara vs. CA, G.R. No. 160328, February 04, 2005;
Abarquez vs. CA, G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003

Slide 54

FIVE BANKING DAYS


Dishonored checks P1,785,855.75

Keeping in possession the four buses-trust properties


surrendered by petitioner estimated value: P6.6
million
Tan vs. PCI Bank, G.R. No. 152666, April 23, 2008

Slide 55

2. Burden of proof - accused


a. Check in the possession of complainant
Accused should have redeemed the check
in the ordinary course of business.
Arceo vs. People, G.R. No. 142641, July 17, 2006
b. Check in the possession of the accused
Payment is presumed
Possession of an order on himself
for the payment of money
Section 3 [q] Rule 131 RRC
Dico vs. CA, G.R. No. 116566, April 14, 1999

Slide 56

3. Payment beyond the grace period


Can only affect the civil, but not the criminal, liability
Tan vs. PCI Bank, G.R. No. 152666, April 23, 2008
Exceptions:
a. Face value of two checks: P215,442.65
Notarial Foreclosure: P1,120,540
Partially invalidated: rentals in arrears - P47,953.12
Filing of case after two years
Payment of rental obligations covered by check
Equitable consideration
Malumprohibitum vs. utilitarian theory
Unjust enrichment
Through circumvention of the purpose of the law
BP 22 should not be applied mechanically
Application must be consistent
With the purpose of and reason for the law
Rationecessatlex, etcessatlex
Spirit and not the letter
Griffith vs. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 129764, March 12, 2002

Slide 57

b. Payment 11 days after receipt of dishonor


File the case 6 months after payment
Should not apply the law strictly or harshly
Spirit and purpose must be considered
Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 154128, February 8, 2007

4. Payment in estafa case, not a defense

Slide 58

PAYING THE HOLDER


1. Application of payment

a. Debtors right to apply (Article 1252 CC)


b. Creditors right to propose application
Receipt
Acceptance by debtor
c. Obligation with interest
Applied to the interest first (Article 1253 CC)
d. Most onerous obligation (Article 1254 CC)
Check - P150,000; payment - P423,354;loan not fully paid
Not a menace against whom society should be protected
Vergara vs. CA, G.R. No. 160328, February 04, 2005

Slide 59

2. Tender of payment and consignation


Tender of ordinary check - Sy vs. Eufemio, 104 Phil.1056
Tender of managers or cashiers check
No valid except exercise of right (redemption)
Leticia Co vs. PNB, 114 SCRA 482
Tender of cashiers check (right to avert criminal action)
Encashment and consignation with the grace period
Crisologo-Jose vs. CA, G.R. No. 80599,
September 15, 1989

Slide 60

3. Petition for suspension of paymentwith SEC or


RTC
Management Committee
Ordering the suspension of all pending actions for claims
After 3 months from notice of dishonor
Suspension order
Cannot enjoin criminal action for BP 22
Can enjoin award of indemnification
Rosario vs. Co, G.R. No. 133608, August 26, 2008

Slide 61

PAYING THE AMOUNT DUE ON THE CHECK


1. Face value

Full payment of face value during the grace period


Contrary interpretation will defeat the purpose of the law
Safeguarding the banking system and checking account user
Macalalag, G.R. No. 164358, December 20, 2006
2. Due - Blacks Law Dictionary defines the word due as justly owed;
that which the law or justice requires to be paid or done.
Face value of two checks: P215,442.65
Notarial Foreclosure:P1,120,540
Partially invalidated: rentals in arrears - P47,953.12
Collection of amount to cover the value of the checks for payment
of rentals
Griffith vs. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 129764, March 12, 2002

Slide 62

PAYING THE AMOUNT DUE ON THE CHECK

1. Face value
Full payment of face value during the grace period
Contrary interpretation will defeat the purpose of the
law
Safeguarding the banking system and checking
account user
Macalalag, G.R. No. 164358, December 20, 2006

Slide 63

ARRANGEMENTS FOR PAYMENT


2. Novation
a. Compromise agreement = arrangement for payment
Idos vs. CA, G.R. No. 110782, September 25, 1998
b. Unfulfilled promise agreement to pay dishonor

Novation theory does not apply where agreement to pay


turns out to be merely an empty promise
Diongzon vs. CA, G.R. No. 114823, December 23, 1999

Slide 64

3. Replacement check
a. Good replacement check Arrangement for payment
Vergara vs. People, G.R. No. 160328, February 04, 2005
Made 15 days after notice of dishonor not a defense
Vaca vs. CA, G.R. No. 131714, November 16, 1998
b. Dishonored replacement check
Replaced check
New undertaking turned out to be an empty promise
Magdayao vs. People, G.R. No. 152881, August 17, 2004
Replacement check
Like guarantee check, it is within the ambit of BP Blg. 22
Lagman vs. People, G.R. No. 146238, December 7, 2001

Slide 65

REMEDIES
1. Criminal actions for estafa and BP Blg. 22
2. Administrative case against public officer or lawyer
3. Disqualification to run for public office

4. Collection case
Disadvantage: Cannot intervene in the criminal case

Slide 66

PERSON LIABLE
1. Signatories
a. Personal check
b. Corporate check
Officer
Marketing employee
Treasurer
2. Conspiracy
Applicable to BP 22
Presence is not conspiracy
Actual debtor and guarantor-drawer
3. Borrower of checks

Slide 67

COMPLAINANT
1. Payee, holder, indorsee
2. Representative of corporation
a. Board Resolution or Secretary Certificate
b. Director of corporation
Compromise agreement with corporation
Lack of personality
Tak vs. Makasiar, G.R. No. 122452, Jan. 29, 2001

Slide 68

PERIOD TO FILE CRIMINAL


ACTION
1. Six year period of prescription
2. Commencement of the running of prescriptive period
Expiration of grace period from receipt of notice
of dishonor
3. Interruption of the running of prescriptive period
Filing complaint with the fiscal or court

Slide 69

VENUE
1. Place of issuance
Not place where the check was signed
2. Place of dishonor
Drawee bank
Depository bank

Slide 70

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
1. Details of defraudment
2. Attachments retain the original copies
3. Comparison of the original and machine copies

4. Prima facie evidence vs. probable cause

Slide 71

INFORMATION
1. Unlike in estafa, there is warrant of arrest in BP 22
except bench warrant
2. Check allegations in the information
(a) Check number and other description of the
check
(b) Date of issuance
(c) Notice of dishonor sent by drawee bank
(d) Stop-payment

Slide 72

TRIAL
1. Intervention through counsel

2. Suspension of proceeding
Pre-judicial question
Petition for review
Motion for reconsideration
3. Best evidence rule
Lost checks
Check in possession of accused

Slide 73

TRIAL
4. Non-presentation of bank representatives
Magdayao vs. People, G.R. No. 152881, August 17, 2004

Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 133036, January 22, 2003


5. Presentation of the check with statement of dishonor
Presumption: (1) consideration; (2) issuance
( 3) presentment (4 ) dishonor
6. Proof of bad faith
Element of estafa
Important to justify the imposition of imprisonment penalty

Slide 74

TRIAL
7. Demurrer to evidence
Can still present evidence on the civil aspect

9. Improper charge
a. Estafa vs. violation of BP 22
b. Check with sufficient funds at the time of
issuance
No double jeopardy
10. Affidavit of desistance

Slide 75

PENALTY
1. One year of imprisonment
2. Fine Not less than face value
Not more than 2x of face value
a. Preference of penalty
Fine
Substantial payment
Health condition
Exert effort to pay
Imprisonment
Bad faith or failure to prove good faith
Multiple checks
At large

Slide 76

PENALTY
b. An addition to award of damage plus interest
c. Convertible into imprisonment
d. Preference of payment
Civil obligation first before fine
Article 38 of the RPC
3. Probationable offense
a. Depreciate the seriousness of the offense
b. Schedule of payment
c. No previous conviction

Slide 77

PENALTY
4. Civil liability
(a). Mandatorily instituted with the criminal action
Payment of fees
(b). Interest (More than 36%)
Unconscionable interest
5. Estafa
Up to 30 years