Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

GR: There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the

check was presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and
was dishonored.
XPN:
1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date
2. When the maker or drawer:
a. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within five banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check
within five banking days after notice of nonpayment.
Wong v. CA and PP, GR 117857, Feb. 2, 2001:
That the check must be depsited within ninety days from due date thereof is
simply one of the conditiions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of
lack of funds to arise; it is not an element of the offense. Neither does it
discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain funds in the account within a
reasonable time. By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after six
months or 180 days. If deposited within said period, the check cannot be
considered stale; only the presumption that the drawer has knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds, is lost. But such knowledge could still be proven by direct
or circumstantial evidence during the trial.
(Wong Case: When private respondent deposited the checks 157 daysafter the
date of the checks, the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds was
lost. But such knowledge could still be proven by direct or circumstantial
evidence such as in this case, the trial court found that petitioner made
reassurance that he would issue new checks but failed to do so, was duly notified
of the dishonour of the checks and failed to make arrangementsfor full payment
within five (5) banking days thereof.)
ARCEO v PP G.R. No. 142641

July 17, 2006:

In Wong v. Court of Appeals,4 the Court ruled that the 90-day period provided in
the law is not an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge petitioner from
his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time from
the date indicated in the check. According to current banking practice, the
reasonable period within which to present a check to the drawee bank is six
months. Thereafter, the check becomes stale and the drawer is discharged from
liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.
Thus, Cenizals presentment of the check to the drawee bank 120 days (four
months) after its issue was still within the allowable period. Petitioner was freed
neither from the obligation to keep sufficient funds in his account nor from
liability resulting from the dishonor of the check.

MANUEL NAGRAMPA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 146211


August 6, 2002
In Bautista v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that such prima facie presumption is
intended to facilitate proof of knowledge, and not to foreclose admissibility of
other evidence that may also prove such knowledge; thus, the only consequence
of the failure to present the check for payment within the 90-day period is that
there arises no prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
The prosecution may still prove such knowledge through other evidence.
In this case, FEDCOR presented the checks for encashment within the 6-month
period from the date of issuance of the checks, and would not therefore have
been considered stale had petitioners account been existing. Although the
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise, such knowledge
was sufficiently proved by the unrebutted testimony of Mirano to the effect that
petitioners account with the Security Bank was closed for more than 4 years
prior to the issuance of the 2 checks in question.

(if the holder presented the check beyond the 90 day period from the issuance,
you can still prove that the drawer had knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the
time of issuance by presenting certification from the bank as proof that the
drawer, after the issuance of the check, closed his account or had made some
withdrawals)1

1 Judge Debalucos discussion on Crim Law Rev