Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.

22 (BP 22) or the Anti-Bouncing

Checks Law and Estafa are two different crimes. According to Section
1 of BP 22, the act being punished is the making or drawing of any
check to apply on account or for value, knowing that at the time of
issue, the check has insufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment. Basically, it is the issuance of a check that is dishonored
due to insufficiency of funds or the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment of the said check. The act is
punishable by imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) 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 shall not exceed P200,000, or
both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Section 1 of
Act No. 3326 states that the prescriptive period for filing a complaint
for violation of BP 22 is four (4) years from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, or if not known at that time,
from the discovery thereof.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code defines Estafa with the use of
checks. In Estafa, the check, is issued prior to or simultaneous to the
commission of a fraud and the said check was dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds. The punishment for Estafa is dependent on
the value of the fraud, and may range from the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum to medium period (1 month to 2 months and 2
months and 1 day to four months) up to prision correc-cional in its
maximum period (4 years, 2 months and 2 days to 6 years) to prision
mayor in its minimum period (6 years and 1 day to 8 years).
Depending on the penalty, the prescriptive period for filing a
complaint for Estafa may be from five (5) years to fifteen (15) years
from the time the crime is discovered by the offended parties, the
authorities, or their agents.
BP 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check, while in
Estafa, there must be fraud committed prior or simultaneous to the
issuance of the check. The penalties also differ.

Therefore, if the crime you allegedly committed was BP 22, the

lending company has four (4) years to file a case against you from the
day of the commission of the crime or from the date of dishonor of the
check. In Estafa, the time to file a case prescribes depending on the
value of the fraud.

The notice to you that your check bounced or was dis-honored will
only provide the prosecution with a prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act in Estafa and prima facie
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit in BP
22. This means that if the drawee was notified of the dishonor of his
check, the fact of fraud or knowledge of insufficiency of funds is
already established.

Estafa Through Issuance of Unfunded Checks

The crime of Estafa is punished under the Revised Penal Code. One can be held guilty for
Estafa by means of issuing a bouncing check with the use of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed 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 had
no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
the check. (Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 4885)"

How can a person be held guilty for Estafa?

Under the RPC, the following elements are necessary to hold a person guilty of Estafa:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the
check was issued
2. Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
3. Damage to the payee thereof.
The most important element here is the damage caused. Absent any of the following elements,
a person cannot be held liable for Estafa.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/9789816

Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)

Unlike Estafa which has its basis under the RPC, BP 22 is enacted through a special law. A
person can be charged for violation of BP 22 when he commits the following acts:

1. 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;

2. 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.

How can a person be held guilty for Violation of BP 22?

Violation of BP 22 can be filed against any person when the following are present:
1. Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
2. 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
3. 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.

Same with Estafa, the presence of all these requirements is important. Otherwise, the charge of
BP 22 will not attach. Note that knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed when 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. Additionally, in
BP 22, good faith is immaterial. Meaning, the mere issuance of an unfunded check already
consummates the crime.

Using the same example above, Andres can also be charged for Violation of BP 22, other than
Estafa, because BP 22 cases also cover issuances of bouncing checks for value received.

Where does the disparity lie?

It is Estafa when, among others, you issue an unfunded check with fraudulent intent in
consideration of something of value you received. Here intent is material and good faith may be
used as a defense.

It is a case for Violation of BP 22 when you issue an unfunded check whether or not it is for an
obligation you contracted prior to the issuance of the check or not. Simply put, you are liable for
BP 22 whether you issue a check for a present or a past obligation.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/9789816