BOUNCING CHECK: ESTAFA OR B.P. 22?

Talbog na tseke, anong pwede ikaso?
Tumalbog na tseke, estafa o BP 22?

Do you transact business using checks?

Checks (cheques) are still very important and useful in commerce until the present. This, despite the prevalence of the use of online banking, credit cards, and payment apps such as GCASH, AliPay, PayPal and others.

That is why it is very important to regulate the use of checks, that is, to maintains the reputation and credibility of the check system.

In this video, Your_Lawyer discusses the laws that deals with bouncing checks, particularly Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.

ESTAFA THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF BOUNCING CHECKS:

Paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:
x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
x x x
(d) 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. 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 or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

The elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee. (PEOPLE V. MONTANER, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011)

PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER RA 10951:

"1st The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, if the amount of fraud is over Four million four hundred thousand pesos (₱4,400,000) but does not exceed Eight million eight hundred thousand pesos (₱8,800,000). If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

"2nd. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (₱2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (₱4,400,000).

"3rd. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period, if the amount of the fraud is over One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million four hundred thousand pesos (₱2,400,000).

"4th. The penalty of prisión mayor in its medium period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000).

"5th. By prisión mayor in its minimum period, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000)."(d) 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.

BP 22 (BOUNCING CHECKS LAW):

The Bouncing Checks Law penalizes two (2) distinct acts: First, making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and, second, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank 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.

In the first paragraph, the drawer knows that he does not have sufficient funds to cover the check at the time of its issuance, while in the second paragraph, the drawer has sufficient funds at the time of issuance but fails to keep sufficient funds or maintain credit within ninety (90) days from the date appearing on the check. In both instances, the offense is consummated by the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or credit.

The check involved in the first offense is worthless at the time of issuance since the drawer had neither sufficient funds in nor credit with the drawee bank at the time, while that involved in the second offense is good when issued as drawer had sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when issued.16 Under the first offense, the ninety (90)-day presentment period is not expressly provided, while such period is an express element of the second offense. (BAUTISTA V. CA, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001)

_____

Attributions:

• All background music/sounds were provided by Splice.com by paid subscription.
• Video clips were provided by Invideo.io also by paid subscription.
• Illustrations were created using Doodly.