PHIEL DAPHINE NACIONALES (BAC)

ESTAFA VS. BOUNCING CHECK LAW

ESTAFA (ARTICLE 315)

Through Issuance of Unfunded Checks, The crime of Estafa is punished under the Revised
Penal Code. One can be held guilty for Estafa by means of issuing a bouncing check with the
use of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud. By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. (Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code
as amended by R.A. 4885). Under the RPC, the following elements are necessary to hold a
person guilty of Estafa:
first is The offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at
the time of the postdating or issuance, second, at the time of postdating or issuance of said
check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover
the amount of the check; and lastly, the payee has been defrauded. It has been settled in
jurisprudence that in the above-defined form of estafa, it is not the nonpayment of a debt
which is made punishable, but the criminal fraud or deceit n the issuance of a check. Deceit
has been defined as “the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct
by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury.

The purpose of ESTAFA or Article 315 are proving the existence of injury or damage, it is
unnecessary to inquire whether, as a matter of fact, the unpaid debt could be or had been
successfully collected; the commission of the crime is entirely independent of the subsequent
and casual event of collecting the amount due and demandable, the result of which, whatever
it may be, can in no wise have any influence upon the legal effects of the already
consummated concealment of documents; the extent of a fraud, when it consists of the
concealment of a document, should be graded according to the amount which the document
represents, as it is evident that the gravity of the damage resulting therefrom would not be the
same.

Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)

Unlike Estafa which has its basis under the RPC, BP 22 is enacted through a special law. A
person can be charged for violation of BP 22 when he commits the following acts like Making
or drawing and issuing 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, and
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. Violation of BP 22 can be filed against any
person when the following are present, first, Making, drawing and issuance of any check to
apply for account or for value, second, 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 such check in full upon its presentment; and last, Subsequent dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Same with Estafa, the presence of all these requirements is important. Otherwise, the charge
of BP 22 will not attach. Note that knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed when it is
proved that the issuer received a notice of dishonor and that within 5 days from receipt
thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment.
Additionally, in BP 22, good faith is immaterial. Meaning, the mere issuance of an unfunded
check already consummates the crime.

The purpose of bp 22 or anti bouncing checks law are In order to afford protection to business
and the public in general, and prevent the circulation of worthless checks, Batas Pambansa
(BP) Blg. 22, also known as “An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a
Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes,” was approved in April
1979. The law punishes the acts of making and issuing a check with knowledge by the issuer
that at the time the check is issued, he does not have sufficient funds, and the failure to keep
sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of  90 days
from the date appearing on the check.

The difference between ESTAFA and Anti Bouncing Check Law are It is Estafa when, among
others, you issue an unfunded check with fraudulent intent in consideration of something of
value you received. While It is a case for Violation of BP 22 when you issue an unfunded
check whether or not it is for an obligation you contracted prior to the issuance of the check or
not. Otherwise stated, you are liable for BP 22 whether you issue a check for a present or a
past obligation. And ESTAFA Upon notice of dishonor by the drawee bank, the drawer of the
check is given 3 days to pay the check or make arrangements for its payment. While
bouncing check law Upon notice of dishonor from the drawee bank, the drawer is given 5
days to pay or make arrangements for the payment of the check. And The similarities of
ESTAFA and Anti Bouncing Check Law are, they have the same one civil liability, while the
single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to two distinct criminal offenses. ESTAFA
and violation of BP 22 involves only one liability for the offended party since he sustains only
a single injury. The civil action in the BP 22 case is not a bar to a civil action in an ESTAFA
case and vice versa. And also a person’s culpability both under BP 22 and under Article 315
also known as ESTAFA of the Revised Penal Code, it is indispensable that the check he or
she issued for which he or she was subsequently charged be offered in evidence because the
gravamen of the offense charged is the act of knowingly issuing a check with insufficient
funds.