vBouncing Check

Bouncing Checks are checks refused by a bank and returned to the person who
wrote it due to insufficient funds

There are two laws penalizing bouncing checks. First is ESTAFA as provided in
the Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, and second, under the Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 also known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

Both laws are going to be discussed in order for us to know which particular case
can be filed when there is insufficiency of funds when a check is issued.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A
CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.

A Person can be Charged for Violation of BP 22 when He Commits the

Following Acts

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.
Requirements for a Person to Be Held Guilty for Violation of BP 22

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

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.

Knowledge of Insufficiency of Funds

When the checks is presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check,
and was dishonored by the bank by issuing a notice of dishonor or refusal, it shall
be a prima facie evidence that the drawer has the knowledge of such insufficiency.
The drawer can, therefore, pay the holder the amount due, or make arrangements
for the payment in full by the drawee bank within (5) banking days after receiving
notice of dishonor.
The law gives the accused an opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the
check to avoid prosecution.

Duty of the Drawee

It shall be the duty of the drawee in refusing to pay the holder upon presentment,
to issue a notice of dishonor or refusal, which explicitly states the fact that there
are no sufficient funds.

Punishment for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22

The person who draws and issues the check with insufficient funds, or in the case
of a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the
check shall be punished by the following:

Imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or
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 may be sanctioned at the discretion of the
court
 Estafa - Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code

Definition of Estafa:
Estafa is a criminal offense wherein a person defrauds another by the following
means:
1. By unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
2. By deceit
3. By fraudulent means

Estafa is commited by a person who defrauds another, causing him to suffer

damage, by means of unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, or of false pretense
or fraudulent acts.

Art. 315. Swindling (Estafa) may be filed by:

(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when
the offender therein was 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.)]

REQUIREMENTS TO BE HELD GUILTY FOR ESTAFA

(Art. 315(2)(d), Revised Penal Code)
Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contractedat
the time the check was issued
Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
Damage to the payee thereof.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 Vs.ESTAFA

(Art. 315(2)(d), Revised Penal Code)

BATAS PAMBANSA blg. 22 ESTAFA 9 (Art. 315(2)(d), Revised

Penal Code

Issued in payment of pre-existing Issuance of check is done at the same

obligation. time the obligation is incurred.
*similar with Fraud in Contracts (Dolo Causante and Dolo Incidente)
1. Dolo causante is commited before or at the same time the obligation is
incurred & the reason why one party has entered into a contract; Same as Estafa
where the issuance of the bouncing check is at the same time the obligation is
incurred.
2. Dolo incidente is commited after the obligation has been perfected; same as
BP22, where the issuance of the bouncing check is for the payment of a pre-
existing obligation.

Example:

Marian went to a boutique to shop for clothes. Since she is a friend of the store
owner, she was allowed to pay later. After 10 days, Marian issued a check in
payment of the clothes she bought. The check bounced to the dismay of the
store owner.
Can Marian be held liable for estafa?

No. Marian cannot be held liable for estafa because the check was issued in
payment of a pre-existing debt. As mentioned earlier, estafa through the
issuance of a bouncing check can be committed only if the check was issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued.