You are on page 1of 3

ESTAFA

Elements
in
General:
1. The accused defrauded another by
abuse of confidence of by means of
deceit; and
2. That damage or prejudice capable
of pecuniary estimation is caused to
the offended party or third persons

ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT (Article


315,
No.
2
RPC)
Elements:
1. There must be false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
2. Such false pretense, 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; and
4. That as result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.

ARTICLE 315 NO. 2


(d) By post-dating a check, or
issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender
therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check.
The failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt
of notice from the bank and/or the
payee or holder that said check
has been dishonored for lack of
insufficiency of funds shall be
prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act. (As amended by
R.A. 4885, approved June 17,
1967.)
Canonizado (Estafa vs. BP22)

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender postdated a
check, OR issued a check in payment
of an obligation; and
2. That such postdating or
issuing a check was done when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or
his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the
check
The issuance by the offender of
the check (whether postdated if bit),
prior to or simultaneous with the
transaction, must be for the purpose
of
contracting
the
obligation,
otherwise if the check is issued in
payment of a preexisting obligation,
no estafa is committed, only a civil
liability.
- If the check was issued by the
debtor only for security of the creditor,
as in the nature of promissory notes
but not to be encashed, no estafa will
be
involved.
- Good faith is a defense in a charge of
estafa by postdating or issuing a
check (People vs Villapando, 56 Phil
31)
- Estafa by issuing a bad check is a
continuing offense
- There is prima facie evidence
of deceit when the drawer fails to pay
or make arrangement for payment
three (3) days after receiving notice of
dishonor.
- The payee or person receiving
the check must be damaged or
prejudiced

BOUNCING
B.P. Blg. 22
Offenses

Page 1

CHECKS

Punished

under

LAW
BP22:

A. Making or Drawing and issuing


a check knowing at the time of issue
that he does not have sufficient funds
Elements:
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 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 credit, or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment
Requisites for Criminal Liability
under
BP
22
1. A person makes, draws or issues a
check as payment for account or for
value;
2.
That
the
check
was
dishonored by the bank due to a lack
of funds, insufficiency of funds or
account already closed;
3. The payee or holder of such
check gives written notice of dishonor
and demand for payment; and
4. That the maker, drawer or
issuer, after receiving such notice and
demand, refuses or fails to pay the
value of the check within FIVE
BANKING DAYS
It is not the making, drawing, or
issuance nor the dishonor of the check
which gives rise to a violation of BP
22, but rather the failure to make
good the check within FIVE BANKING
DAYS from receipt of the Notice of
Dishonor and Demand for Payment
While the written notice of dishonor
and demand is not an element in the
violation of BP 22, the failure to give
Canonizado (Estafa vs. BP22)

such notice to the maker, drawer or


issuer of the bouncing check is FATAL
to an action to hold the latter
criminally liable.
The full payment of the amount
appearing in the check within five
banking days from notice of dishonor
is a complete defense against BP 22.
The absence of a notice of dishonor
necessarily deprives an accused an
opportunity to preclude criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, procedural
due process clearly enjoins that a
notice of dishonor be actually served
on the maker, drawer or issuer of the
check. He has a right to demand that
the notice of dishonor be actually sent
to and received by him to afford him
the opportunity to avert prosecution
under BP 22. (Lina Lim Lao vs People
GR No. 117178 June 20, 1997)

B. Failing to keep sufficient funds


to cover the full amount of the
check
Elements:
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
or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount if presented within a period of
90 days from the date of appearing
thereon; and
3. That the check is dishonored by the
drawee bank.
The 90- day period stated is NOT an
element of the violation of BP 22 by
failing to keep sufficient funds. As
such, the maker, drawer or issuer of
the check is not discharged from his
duty to maintain a sufficient balance
on his account for a reasonable time
even BEYOND the 90-day period. A
reasonable time according to current
banking practice is 6 months or 180
days, after which the check becomes
stale.

Page 2

Thus, where a check is presented


beyond the 90-day period but within
180 days from the date of failure to
maintain a sufficient balance, the
maker, drawer or issuer shall still be
liable for violation of BP 22 (Wong vs
C.A. GR No. 117857, February 2,
2001)
Gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of
a worthless or bum check
Evidence
of
Knowledge
Insufficient Funds

of

- Refusal of drawee bank to pay


the check due to insufficiency of funds
when presented within 90 days from
the date of the check shall be prima
facie knowledge of insufficiency of
funds, unless the drawer or maker
pays the holder the amount due
thereon or makes arrangements for
the payment thereof by the drawee
within five (5) banking days after
receipt of notice that the check was
dishonored.

Canonizado (Estafa vs. BP22)

Page 3

BP 22

ESTAFA (RPC)

The maker or
drawer and
issuer knows at
the time of issue
that he does not
have sufficient
fund in or credit
with the drawee
bank for the
payment of the
check in full

Not necessary
that the drawer
should know at
the time that he
issued the check
that the funds
deposited in the
bank were not
sufficient to
cover the
amount of the
check

Mere issuance of
a check that is
dishonored
gives rise to the
presumption of
knowledge of
insufficiency of
funds

No presumption
of knowledge
arises