ibt

• BP22


  Also known as Bouncing Check Law, penalizes individuals in the Philippines who issue checks without sufficient funds or credit, with imprisonment or a fine, and establishes rules for evidence and liability
• BP22 is often used in trade and other financial transactions
• Criminal prosecutions for violation of BP22

  Involve the issuance of postdated checks as legal evidence of indebtedness
• Requisites (elements) for violation of BP22

  • Making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply on account or value
  • 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 the check in full upon its presentment
  • 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
• Check


  A bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand
• Within what time a check must be presented

  A check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay
• Checks without sufficient funds (Section 1)

  Any person who makes or draws and issues 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, shall be punished by imprisonment or a fine, or both
• Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds (Section 2)

  The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is 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 check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless 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 such check has not been paid by the drawee
• Duty of Drawee (Section 3)

  1. It shall be the duty of the drawee (bank) 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such be the fact
• Credit construed (Section 4)


  The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment of such a check
• Estafa


  Covered under Articles 315 to 318 of the Revised Penal Code, involves deceit and fraudulent means to gain something of value from another person, with penalties ranging from arresto mayor to reclusion perpetua
• BP22 vs Estafa


  • BP22 specifically criminalizes the making or issuance of a dishonored check, without the requirement of deceit, while Estafa requires fraudulent representation
  • The penalty for violation of BP22 is imprisonment for not less than thirty days but not more than one year or by a fine, or both
• Acquittal signifies that a defendant could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
• Exoneration is a broader term that encompasses a number of scenarios in which an individual is cleared of wrongdoing
• Acquittal in the estafa case

  Does not absolve the defendant from civil liability
• Rimando's civil liability in the estafa case did not arise from the crime of estafa but from her role as an accommodation party to one of the checks she issued to the Aldabas on behalf of Multitel
• The filing of two sets of information for BP22 and estafa does not amount to double jeopardy, as they are considered separate and distinct offenses
• The Court ruled that Rimando's acquittal in the estafa case does not absolve her from civil liability to the Aldabas
• Rimando's civil liability in this case did not arise from the crime of estafa but from her role as an accommodation party to one of the checks she issued to the Aldabas on behalf of Multitel
• The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that Rimando's acquittal and exoneration in the BP 22 cases had no effect on the estafa case, as the two offenses have different elements and penalties
• The Court emphasized that the filing of two sets of information for BP 22 and estafa does not amount to double jeopardy, as they are considered separate and distinct offenses
• The CA correctly upheld Rimando's civil liability in the estafa case
• The Court denied Rimando's petition and affirmed the CA's decision
• Petitioners Victor Ting "Seng Dee" and Emily Chan-Azajar were charged with seven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
• Juliet Ting "Chan Sioc Hiu" obtained loans from private complainant Josefina K. Tagle for her furniture business
• Juliet issued eleven post-dated checks to Tagle, which were later dishonored for reasons of "Closed Account" or "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds"
• Petitioners agreed to take over Juliet's business and issued nineteen replacement checks to Tagle
• The planned take-over did not happen, and petitioners requested Juliet to reassume her obligation to Tagle by replacing the checks they had issued
• Juliet replaced the nineteen checks with twenty-three Far East Bank checks in favor of Tagle
• Tagle deposited seven of the checks with MetroBank, where they were dishonored for insufficient funds
• Petitioners were found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision
• Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court
• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and acquitted them of the charges
• The prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt
• While it was established that the checks were issued by petitioners and were dishonored, there was insufficient proof that petitioners received a notice of dishonor
• The prosecution presented a demand letter allegedly sent to petitioners through registered mail, but no evidence was presented to show that the letter was actually sent or received by petitioners
• The presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds does not arise if the issuer pays the amount of the check or makes arrangements for its payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor
• The Court cast doubt on the civil liability of petitioners to Tagle, as it appeared that the checks in question were part of a larger set of checks issued by Juliet Ting, not petitioners
• Kenneth Ngo was convicted for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)