Estafa and Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.

22)

The likelihood that we will come across a check at some point in our lives is almost certain.
Despite the widespread use of credit cards, this mode of payment is still widely used in
many countries. Unfortunately, as the number of people who use checks increases, so
does the number of people who take advantage of them to defraud other people, which
is unfortunate.
A provision in the Revised Penal Code has been inserted to address this issue as a result
of this development. Because this law has flaws and is deemed insufficient to address
certain situations, the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) was enacted into law in order to
address those issues.
Because of the highly technical terminology used in these two laws, non-lawyers may be
perplexed by their contents. Therefore, I have decided to write this simple guide to assist
those who are seeking additional information about estafa and the Bouncing Checks Law.
I hope you find it useful (B.P. 22).

How is estafa through the issuance of bouncing checks committed?

It is committed through the use of any of the false pretenses or fraudulent acts listed
below, which are carried out either 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
did not have sufficient funds in his bank account, or when the amount of funds in his bank
account was insufficient to cover the amount of the check. As amended by R.A. 4885,
Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code provides that:

What are the elements of estafa through the issuance of bouncing checks?
This form of estafa has the following elements:
Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the
time the check was issued Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and Damage
to the payee thereof.
If any of these elements is not present then a person cannot be held liable for estafa.
Kelly went to a jewelry store to look for some new pieces. She was given the opportunity
to pay later because she is a relative of the store owner. Kelly issued a check to cover
the cost of the clothes she had purchased after 30 days. The check bounced, much to
the displeasure of the store's proprietor. Is Kelly liable for estafa in the first place?

Due to the fact that the check was issued in payment of an already existing debt, Kelly
cannot be held responsible for estafa. As previously stated, estafa can only be committed
through the issuance of a bouncing check if the check was issued in payment of an
obligation that had been contracted at the time the check was issued, otherwise it cannot
be committed. It should be noted, however, that even though there is no estafa, Kelly may
still be held liable for another crime, which will be discussed further below.

Can the issuance of bouncing checks give rise to other offense aside from estafa?

Yes. A single act of issuing bouncing checks may result in the commission of multiple
offenses, including estafa and violation of B.P. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law).

How is a violation of the Bouncing Checks Law committed?

There are two possible ways by which this can be committed, to wit:
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
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.
What are the elements of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law?
An offence under this law is committed when the following elements are present:
Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
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
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.
How can there be presumption that the maker, drawer, or issuer had knowledge of
the insufficiency of funds?
The presumption arises only after 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.

In the same example given earlier, can Marian be held liable for violation of the
Bouncing Checks Law?

Yes, because in Bouncing Checks Law, unlike in estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the
Revised Penal Code a person can be held liable for making, drawing or issuing a
check for account or for value. Meaning, even if the check was issued in payment of
an existing obligation, the person can still be held liable.

Can Marian use as a defense the fact that there was no malice or bad faith on
her part when she issued the check?

No. The law does not consider important whether or not malice and intent attended
the issuance of the check.

If Marian pays the check or makes an arrangement for its payment within 5 days
from notice of the dishonor, what is the result?

She can invoke this payment as a complete defense if a case will be filed against her
by the store owner.