ESTAFA (ART. 315) • Ex.
When an agent receives money from the principal (it
• In general, Estafa is known as swindling and involves
fraud.
• In order to constitute the crime of estafa, the following
elements must concur:
1. The accused must have defrauded another either with
unfaithfulness/ abuse of confidence, or by means of
deceit (includes false pretenses, fraudulent acts or
fraudulent means)
*In abuse of confidence – deceit is not essential; all that
is required is there is confidence imposed and it is abused
Ex. Money or personal property is entrusted to the
accused.
2. Damage or prejudice which is capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or victim - damage
can be quantified in terms of amount/ money and such
damage is the basis for the penalty
a. The offended party being deprived of his money/
property
b. Disturbance in property rights
c. Temporary prejudice
2 KINDS OF ESTAFA
A. With abuse of confidence/ Unfaithfulness
B. By means of deceit (false pretenses, fraudulent acts
or means)
1ST KIND
ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender has a pre-existing onerous obligation to
deliver something of value (there is already an agreement
before that he agreed to deliver that is of value; must be
fully or partially paid to be estafa)
2. Alters its substance, quality or quantity
Ex. Instead of obligation to deliver with sugar, he
delivered salt or alter its quantity or quality in which
case there must be agreement as to its kind. IF NO
AGREEMENT, the mere delivery which is not
acceptable is NOT ESTAFA.
• even though such obligation bay e based on an
immoral or illegal consideration.
• Adulteration of any health product:
violation of Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
and may also amount to violation of the
Consumer Act of the Philippines
3. There must be damage or prejudice to the offended
party/ victim or third person/ stranger (capable of
pecuniary estimation)
ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
ELEMENTS
1. Money, goods, or other personal property is received by
the offender in trust, or on commission, or
administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same
must be RECEIVED and NOT TAKEN by the offender;
otherwise it will be theft)
• The receipt of the goods or money by the offender must
give him JURIDICAL POSSESSION (different from material
or mere physical possession)
• As to being a continuing crime (check):
o 1st - check is a substitute for money
o 2nd - upon receiving the check, encashing, and
possessing - still liable
o 3rd - creates a fiduciary relation which is an
essential element of estafa by misappropriation
or conversion in the form of trust, commission or
administration
• when the thing is received through (a) trust, (b)
commission, (c) administration : offender acquires
material and juridical possession
JURIDICAL POSSESSION – a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set
up even against the owner.
• is the kind of possession based on, or coming from a
judicial act or transaction (this is what gives you the
right to possess), i.e.: an agreement/ a contract,
express or implied, oral or written; a provision of law
(like a lease, commodatum, or deposit)
• Ex. An agent is entrusted with money to pay the bills of
the principal. The latter cannot get that money back
instantly from the agent because he have an obligation to
perform. UNLESS, the principal cancels such obligation.
• EX. A truck is subject to a lease. The person who
borrowed the truck can set up his right over the truck
against the owner of the truck because that truck is
subject to the lease until the lease expires, AS LONG AS
ownership is not transferred to the offender.
• A simple loan: A person borrows money (ownership is
necessarily transferred – loan in consumption) =
obligation here is to return the same amount = NO ESTAFA
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender, or denial, on his part
of such receipt
• There must be intent to defraud
• The accused uses or disposes the thing as if it is his own or
for own benefit, or use it for other purposes that is not
agreed upon
• The thing or property entrusted was used for the personal
use of the offender
• Ex. Instead of the funds of the principal being used to pay
the bills of the principal, the agent went shopping to the
mall
• Ex. A truck subject to a lease was never returned after the
expiration of the lease and instead, was sold to another
third person.
• Ex. A ring was deposited for safe keeping, but it was sold.
• Under Presidential Decree No. 115, the failure of the
entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
goods, documents, or instruments covered by a trust
 receipt, to the extent of the amount owing to the
entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt; or the
failure to return said goods, documents, or instruments if
they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the
terms of the trust receipt constitute estafa.
• TRUST RECEIPT is a financial document attended to
by a bank and a business that has received delivery of
goods but cannot pay for the purchase until after the
inventory is sold.
Converting – act of using or disposing of another’s property as
if it were one’s own
Misappropriating – means to own, to take something for one’s
benefit
Conversion – presupposes that the thing has been devoted to
a purpose or use different from that agreed upon
MATERIAL POSSESSION
• is possession that does NOT originate from a judicial
act; it is an extension of the personality of the owner
(i.e.: the owner gives you instructions, commands,
orders or requests).
• This may not be set up against the owner of the
property
3. Such misappropriation, conversion, or denial is to
the prejudice of another (causes damage to another)
• It is not necessary that the offender gains or benefits, it is
SUFFICIENT that the offended party suffers loss or
damage
Does momentary use by the agent of funds belonging to his
principal constitute estafa?
Since in the momentary use, the agent has no intention to
defraud his principal, it would seem that he is not liable. Under
Art. 315, fraudulent intent is necessary element of estafa.
When is an agent who gave to a sub-agent the thing received
from his principal, guilty of misappropriation or conversion?
The law on agency allows appointment by an agent of a
substitute or sub-agent in the absence of express agreement
to the contrary between agent and principal.
NOTE:
• Pubic officers nay commit estafa ONLY if in their capacity
as private individuals
• A co-owner is NOT liable for estafa = he becomes liable
when, after the termination of the co-ownershipp, he
misappropriates the thing which has become the
exclusive property of another.
- Estafa in co-ownership is possible if only on the part of
the thing or property of the accused
- When the money or property had been received by a
partner for the specific purpose and he later
misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of estafa.
• Co-ownership is the sharing of ownership in an asset
between one individual or group and another individual
or group, wherein each owns a percentage of the asset.
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party
to the offender to return the thing
• DEMAND (4th estafa element) is not necessary when
there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the
offender.
o HOWEVER, the failure to account for the thing is
a circumstantial evidence for the
misappropriation or conversion done by the
offender
• Demand need not be formal, can be made verbally.
• The gravity of the crime of estafa is determined in the
basis of the amount not returned upon the obligation to
do so, and before the institution of the criminal action.
THERE IS NO ESTAFA THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
• in estafa, the profit or gain must be obtained by the
accused PERSONALLY, through his own acts, and his
mere negligence in permitting another to take
advantage or benefit from the entrusted chattel
cannot constitute estafa
ESTAFA BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIGNATURE
OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IN BLANK
ELEMENTS
 1. Here, the blank paper is signed by the offended party
and delivered it to the offender. It must be received
and not taken or stolen by the offender.
2. The offender wrote on the blank paper with
signature without the authority of the offended
party.
3. Such document creates a liability or causes damage
or prejudice to the third person.
ESTAFA VS. THEFT
• In theft, there is only a material possession is taken with
the intent to gain by the offender
• In Estafa, the offender have a juridical possession of the
thing. In case where there is none and just material
possession, such as in the case of domestic helper or teller
in the bank, it is qualified theft and not just simple theft
if such taking is done with grave abuse of confidence
• If thing is public fund or property and it is appropriated or
misappropriated by a public officer or a private individual
in conspiracy with a public officer - MALVERSION, not
estafa.
2ND KIND – ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT
ESTAFA BY FALSE PRETENSES (BY MEANS OF DECEIT) –
PANLOLOKONG MGA SALITA/ DECEITFUL WORDS
1. Estafa by means of deceit – there must be false pretenses,
fraudulent acts, or fraudulent means and thus must be
made or executed PRIOR TO OR BEFORE OR
SIMULTANEOUSLY with the fraud
2. The offended party must have relied to the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means which
caused him or induced him to part with his money or
property
3. The offended party or third person must have suffered
damage
• IF THERE IS NO DECEIT, NO ESTAFA. If the offended party
is aware of the nature of the pretense.
• The element of deceit consisting of the false statement
must be made prior to or at least simultaneously with the
delivery of the thing.
• DECEIT must only be the very cause or motive with
induces or causes the victim or offended party to deliver
the money or property (Niloko ka kaya mo binigay)
SEVERAL WAYS OF COMITTING ESTAFA IN ART. 315, NO. 2
A. By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits. = ART. 315, PAR. 2 (A)
FICTITUOUS NAME – when a person uses a name other than
his real name.
Ex. A person saw a pawn ticket under the name of Juan. So, he
went to the pawn shop and pretended to be Juan to redeem
the jewelry.
PRETENDS TO POSSESS POWER – When a person uses a paper
without value.
Ex. A person invents a paper which is equivalent to money. He
uses this person to convince an ignorant indigenous person
who knows nothing about city life. He uses that paper to
induce that person to sell his carabao.
EX. Pretending to be a magician to locate a hidden treasure.
PRETENDS TO POSSESS INFLUENCE – When a person pretends
that he can influence a decision of public officials in the city
hall or to perform a certain duty.
Ex. A conman represented himself to the offended party that
he have influence in Malacanang, Bureau of Immigration, and
DFA. Said representation was made by him for inducing the
other party who have plans or interest of permanently residing
in the Philippines. The victim paid him the sum of money he
asked, which he spent for personal benefits.
PRESENTS TO POSSESS QUALIFICATIONS – When the accused
pretends to be a lawyer or a doctor, whereas the offended
party believed such representation, and gives money for
payment.
PRETENDS TO POSSESS PROPERTY – When a person orders
building materials to build a house and he says that he have
enough money to pay. But, the truth is he is doesn’t have
money.
If the accused represented that he have 10 sacks of rice and
the victim paid 15k, but it turns out there is no rice in the first
place.
PRETENDS TO POSSESS CREDIT – When the offenders
pretends to have a credit to a store, that the store owes them
something, and it can be paid by giving goods instead of
money. The manager on duty believed them as they seem
credible. After receiving such goods, they ran away.
PRETENDS TO POSSESS AGENCY – A person pretends to be a
seller of a condominium and gets money from the buyer who
believes that he can sell him a unit. (To be safe from fraud,
always ask for a written SPA or Special Power of Attorney)
When the accused pretends to be a recruitment agency, where
he was able to obtain 70k to the victim who was promised
employment abroad. But uses such money for personal
benefits.
PRETENDS TO POSSESS BUSINESS – When the accused
pretends of appraising a jewelry. He gets the jewelry and run
away.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT – any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers
and includes referring, contact services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad…. Provided, that such
non-license or non-holder, who, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged.
Illegal recruitment is “committed by persons, who, without
authority from the govt, give impression that they have the
power to send workers abroad for employment purposes”.
Illegal recruitment by a syndicate – carried out by a group of
three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another.
Illegal recruitment in large scale – committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group
ELEMETS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE
1. Accused undertook a recruitment activity defined
under Art. 13(b)
2. He did not have license or the authority to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers
3. HE committed the same against three or more
persons
Note: To be punishable, the pretense must be actually false in
order for us to infer criminal intent. The offended party must
also be deprived of his property by any of those false
pretenses.
B. By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business. ART. 315, PAR. 2(B)
• A jeweler who recasts or repurchase a ring that is 24 carats
and make it of a lower quality or replaces the diamond
with glass – ESTAFA
C. By pretending to have bribed any Government
employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty. ART.
315, PAR. 2 (C)
• The offender in this case asks money from a private person
who is in fault and gets money from that person to “bribe
the public employee” as he have connection with him, but
in fact, he do not and just intends to use the money for
personal purposes.
• If the offender receives money and INDEED bribed the
public employee = CRIME: corruption of public officer
ESTAFA BY FRAUDULENT ACTS (BY MEANS OF DECEIT) –
DECEITFUL ACTS
• These acts must be performed PRIOR TO or
SIMULTANOEUSLY with obtaining the property of the
victim
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.) ART. 315, PAR. 2 (D)
• In this case, the offender post-dated or issued a check in
payment for an obligation. Such post-dating or issuing of
the check was done when the offender have no funds or
sufficient funds in the bank (with his knowledge) to cover
the amount. Then the victim suffered. THE CHECK MUST
BE GENUINE.
• If offender uses other name not his in issuing a post dated
check – estafa by false pretenses using a fictitious name
• The check must be post-dated or issued TO CREATE AN
OBLIGATION and not as a payment for a pre-existing
obligation – it must be the reason why the victim entered
the obligation
• The accused must have been able to obtain the money or
property of the victim because of the POST DATED CHECK.
• No estafa if the check is merely issued to secure a
performance or obligation. BUT IF IT BOUNCES, then a
violation of BP 22.
• The mere fact that the offender have no funds or no
sufficient funds at the bank to cover the check at the time
he post-dated or issued the check is ENOUGH TO MAKE
HIM LIABLE OF ESTAFA.
• The failure of the offender or the accused to deposit the
amount necessary to cover the check WITHIN 3 DAYS
AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR, is prima facie
evidence of deceit which constitutes estafa.
*prima facie - based on the first impression; accepted as
correct until proved otherwise
- Estafa by issuing bad check is a continuing crime – in case the
alleged deceit was said to take place in Tagaytay, while the
damage in Manila, where the checks were dishonored by the
drawee banks. Jurisdiction can, therefore be entertained in
either court.
NOTE: ESTAFA IS DIFFERENT FROM BP 22:
• Estafa requires the element of deceit and damage which
is not needed in BP 22.
• An offender may commit a violation of BP 22 for the mere
act of issuing a check which bounces. Intent and damage
is immaterial (important in estafa)
• Since both elements are different. An offender may be
liable for violation of the two (Estafa and BP 22)
• Both crimes require a notice of dishonor to arise a
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
E. By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation
at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging
house, or apartment house and the like without paying
therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house by the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning
or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from
a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or
apartment house after obtaining credit, food,
refreshment or accommodation therein without paying
for his food, refreshment or accommodation. ART. 315,
PAR. 2(E)

ESTAFA BY FRAUDULENT MEANS (BY MEANS OF DECEIT) –
ART. 315, NO. 3
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any
document. = ART. 315, NO. 3 (A)
a) the offender induces the other party to sign the
document
b) deceit must be employed to make him sign the
document
c) the offended party must have PERSONALLY signed
the document
d) Damage/ prejudice is caused
• THERE IS NO ESTAFA, if the accused from the start is
willing to sign the document.
• The offender induced the victim. Deceit must be in the
character or the contents of the document. (diff from
what the offender says orally)
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success
in a gambling game. ART. 315, NO. 3 (B)
• Ex. When doing a certain action that implies acquiring a
card, etc
• fixing boxing matches, basketball matches to ensure profit
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part,
any court record, office files, document or any other papers.
ART. 315, NO. 3 (C)
a) there be court records, office files, documents
b) the offender removed, concealed, or destroyed any of
them
c) there must be intent to defraud another
• if the document is destroyed so the accused may not
be found guilty, it is malicious mischief.
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING (ARTICLE 316)
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real
property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same.
ELEMENTS
1. There is an immovable, such as a parcel of land or a
building;
2. Offender who is not the owner represents himself as the
owner thereof;
3. Offender executes an act of ownership such as selling,
leasing, encumbering or mortgaging the real property;
4. The act is made to the prejudice to the owner or a third
person.
• There is a thing (REAL PROPERTY: LAND OR BUILDING) and
the offender is not the owner BUT PRETENDS to be the
owner (deceit). He executes an act of ownership (sells,
leasing) and causes damage to the real owner.
• An encumbrance is a claim against an asset by an
entity that is not the owner. Common types of
encumbrances against real property include liens,
easements, leases, mortgages, or restrictive
covenants. Encumbrances impact the transferability
and/or use of subjected properties.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is
encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such
encumbrance be not recorded.
ELEMENTS
1. The thing disposed is a real property:
2. Offender knew that the real property was encumbered,
whether the encumbrance is recorded or not;
3. There must be express representation by offender that
the real property is free from encumbrance;
4. The act of disposing of the real property is made to the
damage of another.
• the offender disposes or sells the thing which is a real
property
• he sells it and he knows that it was encumbered (meaning
there is an annotation of lease, mortgage, or some other
person has a right over that property – whether recorded
or not)
• the offender must expressly state that the real property is
free from encumbrance (malinis na titutlo)
• the act of disposing such party must cause damage
• the offended party must have been deceived
4. The owner of any personal property who shall
wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice
of the latter or any third person.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender is the owner of personal property;
2. Said personal property is in the lawful possession of
another
3. Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor;
4. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third
person.
• if you own something and gave it to deposit for
safekeeping to a lawful possessor and getting it constitute
estafa.
• offender owns personal property, but is in the lawful
possession of another (pawnshop), and wrongfully takes it
without paying the value thereof and the offended party
experience damages
• Pawnshop – own watch – pretends with money to pay –
snatch it when shown – other forms of swindling
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute
any fictitious contract.
• when a person simulates a transfer to another to defraud
his creditors
• I have 20 creditors but don’t want to pay. The house
whuch they could attach or use to satisfy my debt, I sell it
to another so I wont pay them. = other forms of swindlng
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him
under the belief that it was in payment of services rendered
or labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actually
perform such services or labor.
• there must be fraud (pay me because I did a job for you
even if you did not do anything)

6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action, without express authority from the
court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell,
mortgage, or, in any other manner, encumber the real
property or properties with which he guaranteed the
fulfillment of such obligation.
ELEMENTS
a. offender is a surety in a bond
b. he guaranteed fulfilment of such obligation
c. he sells, mortgages or encumbers the property
d. such sale, mortgage, or encumbrance is:
i. without express authority from court
ii. made before the cancellation of bond
iii. before being relieved from obligation
• the offender or accused is a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action (a case) and he guarantees the
fulfilment of such obligation with his real property/ies.
While that obligation is subsisting, he suddenly sells,
mortgages, or in any other manner encumbers that real
property without the express authority of the court or
made before the cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved in the obligation = other forms of swindling
• there must have always been an actual damage
*PENALTY IN OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING IS LOWER THAN
THAT OF ESTAFA
SWINDLING A MINOR (ARTICLE 317)
Any person who taking advantage of the inexperience or
emotions or feelings of a minor, to his detriment, shall induce
him to assume any obligation or to give any release or
execute a transfer of any property right in consideration of
some loan of money, credit or other personal property,
whether the loan clearly appears in the document or is shown
in any other form, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and
a fine of a sum ranging from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of
the obligation contracted by the minor.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender takes advantage of the inexperience or
emotions or feelings of a minor;
2. He induces such minor to assume an obligation or to
give release or to execute a transfer of any property
right;
3. The consideration is some loan of money, credit or
other personal property; (A minor cannot convey real
property without judicial authority)
4. The transaction is to the detriment of such minor.
• Have a lower penalty
• There must be a damage or prejudice to the minor
• Ex. An offender causes a minor who ran away from home
to sign a receipt for 500 pesos when the minor only
received 200 pesos.
• Actual proof of receipt is not necessary. It is sufficient that
the offender takes advantage of the experience or
emotions of the minor.
OTHER DECEITS (ARTICLE 318)
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the
amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such
amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud
or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the
preceding articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams,
make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of the
credulity of the public in any other similar manner, shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos.
ELEMENTS
a. Defrauding or damaging another by any deceits not
mentioned in preceding articles
b. By interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling
fortunes, or taking advantage of the credulity of the
public in any other similar manner, for profit or gain
NOTE:
• Catch all provision which have lower penalty as well
• Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit (not
mentioned in the preceding articles discussed)
• interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take
advantage of the credulity of the public = done for profit
or gain
• Covers any other kind of conceivable deceit = as long as
damage is caused to the offended party
• Ex. Obtaining a loan on the promise that a real property
will be given as a security or mortgage, but the real
property is not actually given and sold it to someone else.
• A bus conductor who collected 12 pesos but the real value
of the ticket is only 10 pesos
• Using a public vehicle like grab or jeepney without money
to pay
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22: THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
• An act penalizing the making or drawing and issuance of a
check without sufficient funds or credit and for other
purposes.
SECTION 1. CHECKS WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS.
Any person who makes or draws and issues 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, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than
thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not
less than but not more than double the amount of the check
which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of
the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who,
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.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or
entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check
in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
VIOLATED IN 2 WAYS:
1. By making or drawing and issuing any check to apply an
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 checked 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.
ELEMENTS
a. A person makes or draws and issues any
check
b. Drawn and issued to apply on account or for
value
c. The person knows at the time of issue that
he does not have sufficient fund in or credit for
payment of such check upon presentment
d. Check is subsequently dishonored or would
have been dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawer, without valid reason, ordered
the bank to stop payment
• Actually dishonored
• Would have been dishonored had not the drawer ordered
the bank to stop payment
“to apply on account” – if check is used in payment of pre-
existing obligation
“for value” – in payment of an obligation contracted at the
time of the issuance of the check
Credit – arrangement or understanding with the bank for the
payment of the check
*Check is simultaneously issued to create obligation – liable
for BP 22 and Estafa
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, by failing
to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the
full amount of the check if presented within a period of 90
days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
ELEMENTS:
a. the person has sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he draws and issued
the check
b. he fails to maintain or keep the sufficient
fund or credit to cover the amount of the check if
presented within a period of 90 days from the
date appearing thereon
c. the check is dishonored
GRAVAMEN
Issuance of a check, not the nonpayment of an obligation. The
law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum
prohibitum. (intent is immaterial)
• Sec. 23, Art 3 of Ph Constitution – “No one shall be
imprisoned for debt”
• BP 22 punishes is the act of issuing a bouncing check or
failing to keep sufficient funds for 90 days from the date
of such check AND not the non-payment of debt
• Supreme Court states that where there is a variance
between elements of an offense in one law and another is
not double jeopardy.
• Element of damage is essential in estafa, not in BP 22.
• BP 22 – crime defined and penalized there is against public
interest
• Estafa – against property; deceit is element (which is not
in BP 22)
THE CHECK MAY BE MADE OR DRAWN AND ISSUED TO APPLY
ON ACCOUNT OR FOR VALUE
• BP 22 does not make distinction as to whether a bad check
is issued in payment of an obligation or to merely guaranty
an obligation
• BP 22 punishes the making or drawing and issuing of any
check that is subsequently dishonored, even in payment
of pre-existing obligation (“to apply on account”).
• Sec. 1 also punishes the making or drawing and issuing of
any check that is subsequently dishonored, in payment of
 an obligation contracted at the time of issuance (“for
value”).
• Assemblyman Mendoza (Author of BP22) states that “if he
issues a check in payment or contemporaneously with
incurring obligation, then he will be liable for both ESTAFA
and BP22.”
➢ The SC in several case decided that where there is
variance between the elements of estafa and BP 22,
there will be no double jeopardy
• BP 22 – crime defined and penalized is against public
interest
• ESTAFA – crime against property; deceit is essential
KNOWING AT THE TIME OF ISSUE THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE
SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN OR CREDIT WITH THE DRAWEE BANK
• BP 22 requires the person who made or drew and issued
the check knew at the time of issue that he did not have
sufficient funds in credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment.
• Must maintain fund to cover full amount of check
• If he have sufficient funds upon issuing of the check , but
later on withdrew all, if such check will be subsequently
dishonored = not liable on the first violation (bec he have
sufficient funds); but is liable on the 2nd paragraph for
failing to keep sufficient fund or maintain credit
EFFECT OF ORDER TO STOP PAYMENT
• Section 1, par. 1 – If the drawer or maker had in fact no
sufficient funds or credit, and the check would have been
dishonored for that reason had not the drawer or maker
ordered the bank to stop payment, he is liable in violation
of BP 22.
• Order to stop payment is not a defense. The law regards
the order of stopping payment as mere pretext of the
drawer to avoid criminal liability.
• The order to the bank to stop payment of the check must
be without any valid reason.
• The drawer or maker will only be NOT LIABLE if there is a
valid reason
- Ex. Mistake in naming the payee kahit alam na
insufficient yung funds
• Section 1, par. 2 – failure of drawer to keep sufficient
funds or maintain credit in drawee bank
• If the person orders the bank to stop paying a check
without valid reason, he is liable if in fact he have no
sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank and the
check will be dishonored for such reason
PRESENTMENT OF CHECK AFTER 90 DAYS
Suppose the drawer kept sufficient funds in drawee bank for
100 days to cover the check he issued. The next day (101th),
he withdrew ALL. The payee, upon presentment of the check,
it was dishonored for insufficiently of funds.
ANS: According to the old law, the drawer is not liable for the
check was not presented within 90 days from date appearing
thereon. BUT, according to BOT, a personal check is valid for
180 days/ 6 months.
ACCORDING TO BUREAU OF TREASURY
– A commercial or personal check is valid for 6 months/ 180
days (Wong vs. CA)
– An MDS Check is only valid for 3 months/ 90 days.
➢ Modified Disbursement System (MDS) Check - refers
to a check issued by government agencies
chargeable against the account of the Treasurer of
the Philippines, which are maintained with different
MDS AGDBs. MDS checks are covered by NCA.
➢ If it is not encashed within 90 days, it will be a STALE
CHECK, which can no longer be withdrawn and needs
to be surrendered to the govt agency for
replacement/ re-issuance of new check.
• Modified by Wong v. CA –When the offender have
sufficient funds in the drawee bank, but more than 90 days
after, he withdrew all his funds. When the payee tried to
encash the check. The SC states that the 90-day period is
not an element of the crime. The maker or drawer has a
duty to maintain the sufficiency of his fund within a
reasonable time even beyond 90 days.
➢ In the current practice, the reasonable time is 180
days or 6 months. AFTER SUCH, a check becomes a
STALE CHECK which becomes valueless and cannot be
encashed or deposited.
➢ If a check is presented beyond 90 days period but
WITHIN 180 days, it is not yet stale AND if there is no
sufficient funds, then the drawer/ maker of the check
is liable under BP 22
PERSONS LIABLE; WHEN CHECK ISSUED BY A CORPORATION
• Person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf
of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
PAYMENT AS A BP 22 DEFENSE
(1) The prima facie presumption that the drawer has
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit at the
time of the issuance, or on the presentment for payment,
of the check might be rebutted by payment of the value of
the check either by drawer or drawee bank within 5
banking days from notice of dishonor given to drawer. =
payment is a complete defense
(2) When the maker/ drawer makes arrangements of
payment in full with the drawee bank of such check
within 5 banking days upon receiving notice that the check
has not been paid by the drawee (complete defense)
OTHER DEFENSES
(1) The exercise of a statutory right to suspend installment
payments under PD 957
(2) Issuance of post dated checks in payment of a “warrant
deposit”
(3) Failure to encash within reasonable time – discharges the
issues from his obligation to pay and can no longer be
pronounced civilly liable for amounts indicated thereon
(4) Issuance of SEC Order for suspension of payments prior to
presentment of check for payment
(5) Check signatory had no knowledge of insufficiency of funs
in corporate account
 - Where a check signatory did not have actual
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds of the
corporate account at the time she affixes her
signature, BECAUSE her duties and responsibilities did
not encompass the funding of corporation’s checks and
her duties were limited to marketing department, she
is not liable (Lao vs. CA)
NOTICE OF DISHONOR, REQUIRED
• Both is a requirement in Estafa (Art. 315, par. 2(d) and BP
22.
• BP 22 – requires maker or drawer to pay the amount of
check within 5 days from receipt of notice of dishonor.
• This is necessary for prosecution. Without this as proof,
knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed
and no crime can be deemed to exist.
PURPOSES:
a. Must be given to the drawer to give him an
opportunity to prevent criminal prosecution = given 5 DAYS
to pay or make arrangements to pay (part of DUE PROCESS,
giving opportunity)
b. Create a presumption that the drawer had the
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to cover the full
amount of the check in the bank (Prosecution must prove such
receipt)
LACK OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR; FATAL
• SECTION 3 states that “that where there are no sufficient
funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall
not always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or
refusal”. → a mere oral notice or demand to pay would
appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law.
• Requires the act to be punished thereunder not only that
the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that
likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing
the fact of dishonor.
• Notice of dishonor required by BP 22 to be given to the
drawer, maker, or issuer of the check should be written.
• If the service on the written notice of dishonor is
registered mail, the proof of service consists not only in
the presentation as evidence of the registry return receipt
but also of the registry receipt together with the
authenticating affidavit of the person mailing the notice
of dishonor. Without authenticating affidavit, the proof is
insufficient UNLESS the mailer personally testifies in court
on sending by registered mail.
SERVICE VIA REGSISTERED MAIL OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR,
HOW SHOWN
• Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not
prove themselves, this must be authenticated in order to
serve as proof.
• It must appear that the same was served on the addressee
or a duly authorized agent of the addressee. → must affix
signature as proof of receipt
NOTICE OF DISHONOR, REQUIRED IN CLOSED ACCOUNTS
• Where checks were dishonored due to “Closed Account”,
the court held that it is still essential that the maker/
drawer is notified, so she could make arrangements for its
payment within the period prescribed by law
NOTICE OF DISHONOR, NOT REQUIRED WHEN ACCOUNT IS
CLOSED PRIOR ISSUANCE OF CHECK
• Where the drawer gas bi right to expect or require that the
drawee or acceptor will honor the check –> because
account was already CLOSED before issuance of check
NO DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS WHEN THERE IS NO RECEIPT OF
NOTICE OF DISHONOR
• Absence of proof that the drawer/ maker received notice
of dishonor prevents the application of the disputable
presumption that she had knowledge of the insufficiency
of funds.
• Absence of such presumption, the burden shifts to
prosecution to prove that drawer has knowledge of
insufficiency.
• Where there is insufficient proof that notice of dishonor
was received, the presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
➢ In case of service by registered mail, it is sufficient
that the prosecution can prove that the
drawer/maker indeed received the notice.
➢ Presentation of registry card, with an
unauthenticated signature, does not meet the
required proof beyond reasonable doubt.
NOTICE OF DISHONOR TO CORPORATION IS NOT NOTICE TO
OFFICER WHO ISSUED THE CHECK
• Constructive notice to the corporation is not enough to
satisfy due process.
POLICY OF SC ON THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN BP 22
• Section 1 imposes penalty of imprisonment of not less
than 30 days but not more than 1 year OR fine of not less
than but not more than double the amount of the checj,
which fine shall in no case exceed 200k; OR BOTH such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of court.
• In Eduardo v. CA, the SC modified the penalty of BP 22 by
deleting penalty of imprisionment and imposing only the
penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of check.
➢ Petitioners are first time offenders….
• All courts and judges concerned should take not of
foregoing policy…
RULES OF PREFERENCE IN IMPOSING PENALTIES IN BP 22
• SC Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 clarified that the
clear tenor of Administrative Order 12-2000 is not to
remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, butmto
lay down a rule pf preference in the application of
penalties provided in BP 22.
• Furthermore, 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference
when there is existence of the ff circumstances:
➢ There is good faith
➢ Clear mistake of fact without negligence
Note: Imposition of fine alone should be considered as the
more appropriate penalty.
• The determination of whether the circumstances warrant
that imposition of fine alone rests solely upon the judge.
If the judge decided to impose imprisonment, 12-2000 is
not a hindrance.
IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED, INSTEAD OF FINE
(1) Imposed to an accused who issued post dated checks even
though he had no more account with the drawee bank,
having closed it for more than 4 years already →
manifested utter lack of good faith or wanton bad faith
(2) Accused’s act of issuing the 50 and the 64 bouncing checks
is a serious offense. → to impose fines only would be to
depreciate his malefactions.
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY MUST
BE EXPRESSLY STATED IN JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION
• AC No. 13-2001 provides that “should only a fine be
imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there
is no legal obstacle to the application of the RPC provision
on subsidiary imprisonment”
• AC No 13-2001 does not as action indiscriminate
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment
SECTION 2. EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS.
The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which
is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or
credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days
from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such
maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due
thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
PRESUMPTION OF DRAWER’S KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS
• SEC 2 OF BP 22 creates a prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit
• The making, drawing and issuance of a check, payment of
which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit, is prima facue evidence if knowledge of
insufficiency, when the check is presented within 90 days
from the date of the check.
• In People v. Laggui – the maker’s knowledge of
insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the
dishonor of his check
EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES:
a. When the check is presented AFTER 90 DAYS from
the date of the check
• The drawer is not liable because the law
requires that the payee must present the
check to the bank within 90 days from the
date of the check
• Modified by Wong v. CA –When the offender
have sufficient funds in the drawee bank, but
more than 90 days after, he withdrew all his
funds. When the payee tried to encash the
check. The SC states that the 90-day period
is not an element of the crime. The maker or
drawer has a duty to maintain the sufficiency
of his fund within a reasonable time even
beyond 90 days.
• In the current practice, the reasonable time
is 180 days or 6 months. AFTER SUCH, a
check becomes a STALE CHECK which
becomes valueless and cannot be encashed
or deposited.
• If a check is presented beyond 90 days
period but WITHIN 180 days, it is not yet
stale AND if there is no sufficient funds, then
the drawer/ maker of the check is liable
under BP 22
b. When the maker or drawer PAYS the holder of the
check the amount which is due or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee
within 5 banking days after receiving notice that the
check was not paid by the drawee bank (ACTUALLY
PAYS PAYEE WITHIN 5 DAYS – a defense)
• Not liable for settling payment
NOTE: Section 2 establishes that presumption to arise, the
check be presented WITHIN 90 DAYS from the date of the
check.
Elements of knowledge of insufficiency NOT PRESENT, when
the drawer:
(a) Pays the holder the amound due within 5 banking
days after receiving notice of dishonor
(b) Makes arrangement for payment in full by drawee of
such check within 5 banking days after notice or
nonpayment
REMEMBER: Prima facie evidence does not arise where notice
of non payment is not sent to the maker or drawer of the
check.
SECTION 3. DUTY OF DRAWEE; RULES OF EVIDENCE. - It shall
be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to pay
the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause
to be written, printed, or stamped in plain language thereon,
or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's dishonor or
refusal to pay the same: Provided, That where there are no
sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact
shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or
refusal. In all prosecutions under this Act, the introduction in
evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check, having the
drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon or
attached thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall
be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said check,
and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the
dishonor thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored
for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on SECTION 6. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. - If any separable provision
such dishonored check. of this Act be declared unconstitutional, the remaining
provisions shall continue to be in force.
Not with standing receipt of an order to stop payment, the
drawee shall state in the notice that there were no sufficient SECTION 7. EFFECTIVITY. - This Act shall take effect fifteen
funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such days after publication in the Official Gazette.1âwphi1
check, if such be the fact.
Approved: April 3, 1979
SEC. 3 OF BP 22
• If the bank refuses to pay due to insufficient funds, Sec. 3
of BP 22 requires the drawee bank to cause to be written,
printed, or stamped in plain language the reason for the
dishonor or refusal to pay upon presentment for
payment (“drawn against insufficient funds, account
closed, etc”)
• If the drawee bank was ordered by the drawer to stop
payment, the bank must still indicate the reason to the
notice of why it is refused
• When a dishonored check is introduced as evidence with
drawee’s refusal stamp written on the check, it will serve
as to be prima facie evidence of the following:
1. Evidence of the making or issuance of the check
2. The due presentment to the drawee bank for
payment and of the dishonor of the drawee bank
3. The fact that the same was properly dishonored
based on the reason why it is refused

SECTION 4. CREDIT CONSTRUED. - The word "credit" as used

herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or
understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.

SECTION 5. LIABILITY UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE. -

Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any
liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal
Code.
• Issuing a check in payment for an obligation which is
subsequently dishonored, may be punished under
RPC and BP 22.
• Such act of issuing a check without/ with insufficient
funds is punishable on both RPC and BP 22. – there is
no double jeopardy
In Estafa with post-dating a check (Art. 315 par 2(d)) → the
offense is postdating or issuing check in payment of an
obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his
funds deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount.
(DECEIT IS MATERIAL)
➢ There must be a damage = basis of penalty

BP 22 – penalty is fixed without regard to the amount of

damaged if any I s caused; fine is based on the amount of
check, not the damage

REMEMBER: A person can be liable for both BP 22 and ESTAFA

– elements are different
ESTAFA – elements of deceit and damage
BP 22 – punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check or
failing in keeping sufficient funds within 90 days from
presentment (damage is not required)