An Act Penalizing The Making or Drawing and Issuance of A Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes

An Act Penalizing The Making Or
Drawing And Issuance Of A Check

Without Sufficient Funds Or Credit And
For Other Purposes.
Any person who … makes
or draws and issues any
check to apply on account
or for value…
… knowing that he does not
have sufficient fund..
 DEFENSE: issued a memorandum
check which is in the nature of a
promissory note, hence, outside the
purview of the statute.
 RULING: A memorandum check is in
the form of an ordinary check, with the
word "memorandum", "memo" or
"mem" written across its face,
signifying that the maker or drawer
engages to pay the bona fide holder
absolutely, without any condition
concerning its presentment.
 Such a check is an evidence of debt
against the drawer, and although
may not be intended to be
presented, has the same effect as
an ordinary check, and if passed to
the third person, will be valid in his
hands like any other check.
 A memorandum check must therefore fall
within the ambit of B.P. 22 which does not
distinguish but merely provides that "any
person who makes or draws and issues any
check knowing at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank . . . which check is
subsequently dishonored . . . shall be
punished by imprisonment . . ."
 “ cover all kinds of checks, whether
present dated or postdated, or whether
issued in payment of pre-existing
obligations or given in mutual or
simultaneous exchange for something of
value “
any person who, having sufficient
funds in or credit … 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
drawn by a corporation,
company or entity, the person
or persons who actually
signed the check in behalf of
such drawer is/are liable.
 DEFENSE: no knowledge of the
insufficiency of the funds because the
preparation of checks is the
responsibility of the company
accountant and all they do is sign the
checks.
 RULING: Guilty. While it may be true that it
was the company's accountant who actually
prepared the rubber check, the fact remains
that petitioners are the owners and officers of
the company. Sec. 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 provides
that "Where the check is drawn by a
corporation, company, or entity, the person
or persons who actually signed the check in
behalf of such drawer shall be liable…
 Further, the replacement check
was given 15 days after petitioner
had been notified of the
dishonored check. Sec. 2 of B.P.
Blg. 22 requires that such check be
given within five (5) days from the
notice of dishonor to them.
 As to the penalty:
Imprisonment is deleted and
petitioners are each ordered to
pay a fine of P20,000.00
equivalent to double the amount
of the check.
ELEMENTS
(1) the making, drawing and
issuance of any check to apply to
account or for value
 (2) the 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
 DEFENSE: Deceit and damage are
the two essential elements that
make up the offenses involving
dishonored checks. None took place.
 RULING: the elements of deceit and damage
are not essential nor required. An essential
element of that offense is knowledge on the
part of the maker or drawer of the check of
the insufficiency of his funds. The Anti-
Bouncing Checks Law makes the mere act of
issuing a worthless check a special offense
punishable thereunder.
 Malice and intent in issuing the
worthless check are immaterial,
the offense being malum
prohibitum. The gravamen of
the offense is the issuance of a
check, not the non-payment of
an obligation.
 (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.
 DEFENSE: stopped the payment
and advised by the bank to close
his checking account to avoid
charges every time he made a
stop payment.
 Acquitted. First element exist but not the
2nd and 3rd.
 we find from the records no showing that
the time said checks were issued,
petitioner had knowledge that his
deposit or credit in the bank would be
insufficient to cover them when
presented for encashment.
 Closure of the account: made upon
the advice of the drawee bank, to
avoid payment of hefty bank charges
each time petitioner issued a "stop
payment" order to prevent
encashment of postdated checks in
private respondent's possession.
 1. IMPRISONMENT – not <30 days but
not > 1 year
 2. or, FINE – not less than but not more
than double the amount of the check
- not exceeding Php. 200 000
 3. BOTH [discretion of the court]
 Deleted the penalty of
imprisonment
 Imposed only the penalty of fine
in an amount double the amount
of the check.
 Petitioners:
 1st time offenders
 Filipino entrepreneurs who presumably
contribute to the national economy
 acted in GOOD FAITH or there is a clear
mistake of fact without taint of negligence
 imposition of fine is more appropriate
 “to redeem valuable human
material and prevent unnecessary
deprivation of personal liberty and
economic usefulness with due
regard to the protection of the
social order”
 Establishes ONLY the rule of
preference in the application of the
penalties
 1. Administrative Circular
12-2000 does not remove
imprisonment as an
alternative penalty for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22;
 2.The Judges x x x determine
whether the imposition of a fine
alone would best serve the interests
of justice or whether forbearing to
impose imprisonment would
depreciate the seriousness of the
offense, work violence on the social
order, or otherwise be contrary to
 3.
Should only a fine be imposed
and the accused be unable to
pay the fine, there is no legal
obstacle to the application of
the Revised Penal
Code provisions on subsidiary
EVIDENCE OF
KNOWLEDGE
OF
INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS
SECTION 2: [Prima Facie]
making, drawing and

issuance of a check payment
… refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in
or credit with such bank, when
presented within ninety (90)
days from the date of the
 such maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount
due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in
full by the drawee of such
check within (5) banking days
after receiving notice that
DUTY OF THE
DRAWEE |
Rules of
Evidence
Section 3
 Issue
a NOTICE
OF DISHONOR
 statethe reason of
dishonor or
refusal to pay
[written, printed,
stamped in plain
 No sufficient funds –
must be explicitly
stated in the NOTICE
OF DISHONOR
 introduction in evidence
of any unpaid and
dishonored check with
the reason included -
Prima Facie Evidence of
the issuance and making
Preference of
imposition of FINE
Administrative Circular 12-
2000
Possible defenses of
the accused in an
indictment:
 1) payment of the value of the dishonored
check within five banking days from receipt
of the notice of dishonor; [Section 2, BP 22]
 2) payment of the value of the check before
filing of the criminal case in court;
 3) failure to serve a written notice of
dishonor of the check to the issuer;
 4) novation or change in the underlying
obligation of the parties before the filing of
the criminal case in court;
 5) a stop payment order pursuant to a valid
reason such as non-delivery of goods or
services;
 6) knowledge by the payee that the check
was not supported by sufficient funds when
the issuer issued the check.
BAAAAAARRRRR
QUESTIONS
 Pedro Pobre sought financial assistance from his
millionaire friend Joey Manriquez who accommodated him
by issuing in his favor a postdated check in the amount of
P10,000.00. Both of them knew that said check was not
duly funded in the bank. The two then approached Marie
Vic Bautista and asked her to change the check with cash,
adding that even P9,500.00 will do, on the assurance that it
shall be funded on the due date. When Bautista presented
the check to the bank for encashment on its due date, it
was dishonored as the account was closed. What action
may Bautista bring against Pobre and Manriquez to hold
them criminally liable to recover the P9,500.00 she gave
them? Explain.
Pobre and Manriquez can be successfully charged of estafa
under Art. 315. RPC. and violation of BP No. 22.Estafa, because
Manriquez (in conspiracy with Pobre) issued a post-dated
check in payment of a simultaneous obligation, that is the
cash of P9,500.00, and when the check was presented for
payment the same bounced. Manriquez cannot even hide
behind the alibi that he issued the check as an accommodation
or as a guarantee for the obligation of Pobre. Jurisprudence are
extant that extends the sanction of bouncing checks even
under those circumstances.
 BP No. 22 was likewise transgressed because
the postdated check was made and issued "on
account or for value". Prosecution can he
resorted to under both statutes, as the
elements in the two offenses vary, and besides
Estafa is a crime against property whereas
violation of the special law is an offense against
public interest.
 The accused was convicted under B.P, Blg. 22 for
having issued several checks which were dishonored by the
drawee bank on their due date because the accused
closed her account after the issuance of checks. On appeal,
she argued that she could not be convicted under B.P. Blg.
22 by reason of the closing of her account because said law
applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of
insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued the
checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank.
 While she admits that she may be held liable
for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised
Penal Code, she cannot however be found
guilty of having violated B.P. Blg. 22.Is her
contention correct? Explain.
 No, the contention of the accused is not
correct. As long as the checksissued were
issued to apply on account or for value, and
was dishonored uponpresentation for
payment to the drawee bank for lack of
insufficient funds on theirdue date, such act
falls within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. Said law
expressly
punishes any person who may have
insufficient funds in the drawee bank when
he issues the check, but fails to keep
sufficient funds to cover the full amount of
the check when presented to the drawee
bank within ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon.
 A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to di
scuss B's financial problems. On his way, one of
A's car tires blew up. Before A left following the
meeting, he asked B to lend him (A) money to buy
a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his
bank deposits, leaving a zero balance.
Anticipating, however, a replenishment of his
account soon, B issued A a postdated check with
which A negotiated for a new tire.
 When presented, the check bounced for
lack of funds. The tire company filed a
criminal case against A and B. What
would be the criminal liability, if any, of
each of the two accused? Explain.
 A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in
buying a new tire for his car may only be
prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the
time of such negotiation that the check has
no sufficient funds in the drawee bank;
otherwise, he is notcriminally liable.
B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless
be prosecuted under BP 22 for having issued the check,
knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the
bank and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for
value. B may not be prosecuted for estafa because the
facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud
in issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B
issued the postdated check only to help A: criminal intent
or dolo is absent.
 Frank borrowed Pl,000,000 from his brother
Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-
dated check to be presented for payment a
month after the transaction. Two days
before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him
he had insufficient funds and requested that
the deposit of the check be deferred.
Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and
it was dishonored. When Frank failed to
pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint
against him for violation of Batas
Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks
Law). Was the charge brought against
Frank correct?
 Yes, the charge is correct. Violation of
Batas Pambansa Big. 22, The Bouncing
Checks Law, is malum prohibitum
which is committed by mere issuance
of a check without sufficient funds.
Good faith is not a defense.
As long as the check was issued on account or for
value, the purpose for which the check was issued,
the terms and conditions relating to the issuance
are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender.
Hence, the request of Frank to defer the deposit
of the check as it has insufficient funds will not
militate against the prosecution for violation of BP
22.
In SUMMARY
 making, drawing and issuance of
any check
 Knowledge of insufficient funds
 “stop payment” order by the
drawer

An Act Penalizing The Making or Drawing and Issuance of A Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Act Penalizing The Making or Drawing and Issuance of A Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Act Penalizing The Making or Drawing and Issuance of A Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Act Penalizing The Making Or

Drawing And Issuance Of A Check

making, drawing and

You might also like