Bouncing Checks
Bouncing Checks
Bouncing Checks
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 such dishonored check.
One manner of committing estafa is by employment of deceit, deception may be in the form of
issuance of a check in payment of an obligation when the issuer knew that he had no funds or that his
funds are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
In this situation, the issuance of the check should be before or instantaneous with a transaction.
If however, the check was issued in payment of an already existing obligation, then there really is no
estafa but only a civil liability.
If the drawer of the check was not able to pay or make arrangements for payment of the check
within three (3) days from the time he receives a notice of dishonor, then it is prima facie evidence that
he employed deceit in the issuance of the check.
A good example would be the case of People of the Philippines vs. Virginia Baby P. Montaner,
G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011. In this case, accused Virginia Montaner drew and issued ten
postdated checks in exchange for P50,000.00 from Reynaldo Solis. However, when Solis presented the
checks to Prudential Bank, they were dishonored because the account was already closed. So, Reynaldo
sent a demand letter to Virginia, however Virgina still did not make payment. In this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that Virginia was liable for estafa.
It is evident that the issuance of the postdated check was done at the same time that the
P50,000.00 cash was given to the issuer; this was the simultaneous transaction which led to the issuance
of the check. Then, when Solis demanded payment from Virginia, the latter did not comply; this was
prima facie evidence that Virginia was in bad faith when she issued the check. With all the elements of
estafa present, then the issuer should be held liable.
BP 22
In BP 22, there is no need that the issuance of a check be prior to or simultaneous with a
transaction, it is enough that a worthless check was issued on account or for value, with the issuer
aware that he has no funds with the bank or his funds are insufficient to pay the value of the check.
In estafa, three days are given for the offender to pay or make arrangements for payment of the
check, in BP 22, the drawer is given five (5) days after receiving notice of dishonor within which to pay or
make arrangements for payment.
Estafa and BP 22
It should be noted that when one is charged with violation of BP 22, he can still be charged with
any offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code. So, it is possible that one can be liable for both
offenses with just one act of issuing a check.