bp 22 vs estafa

8/13/2019 Bp 22 vs Estafa

1/4

BP 22 vs ESTAFA

POINT OFCOMPARISON

BP 22 ESTAFA (Art. 315(2)(d)RPC)

NATURE OF THECRIME Malum prohibitum Malum in se

ELEMENTS Puns!"#$% A&t N'. 1(n' und 'r nsu&%ntunds "t t!% t% ' t!%ssu"n&%.

a. that a personmakes or drawsand issues any

check

b. that the check ismade or drawnand issued toapply on accountor for value

c. that the personknows that at thetime of issue he

does not havesufficient funds orcredit with thedrawee bank forthe payment ofsuch check uponits presentment

d. that the check issubsequentlydishonored by the

drawee bank forinsufficiency offunds or credit orwould have beendishonored for thesame reason hadnot the drawer,without any valid

a. that the offenderpostdated a checkor issued a checkin payment of anobligation

b. that suchpostdating or

issuing of a checkwas done whenthe offender hadno funds in thebank, or his fundsdeposited thereinwere not sufficientto cover theamount of thecheck.

PLUS (*%n%r"$%$%%nts ' %st"")

c. that the accuseddefrauded anotherby means ofdeceit.

d. That the damageor prejudicecapable of

pecuniaryestimation iscaused to theoffended party orthird persons.


2/4

reason, orderedthe bank to stoppayment.

Puns!"#$% A&t N'. 2(su&%nt unds "t t!%t% ' t!% ssu"n&%#ut "$ur% t' "nt"nsu&! unds)

a. that a person hassufficient fundswith the draweebank when hemakes or draws

and issues acheck

b. that he fails tokeep sufficientfunds or tomaintain a credit tocover the fullamount ifpresented within aperiod of 18 days

from the dateappearing thereon

c. that the check isdishonored by thedrawee bank

OBLI+ATION !ssuance of check is forvalue or on account. it is

applicable to pre"e#istingobligations.

!t is the means to obtainthe valuable

consideration from thepayee$ %in payment of anobligation& '()*T !+-T /)")0!+T!2

E,ISTENCE OF -ECEITAN- -AMA+E

-T necessary 'thegravamen of the offense

(eceit and damage, or atleast intent to cause


3/4

is the issuance of theunfunded check.

damage are essential'the false pretenses mustbe prior to orsimultaneous with thedamage caused2

NO FUN-S ORINSUFFICIENC OFFUN-S/ 0HEN

There is no funds or nosufficient funds at thetime of the issuance'punishable act no. 12 orat the time ofpresentment if madewithin 18 days'punishable act no. 32

There are no funds orthere are insufficientfunds at the tie ofissuance.

LIABILIT OFEN-ORSER

-T liable 4iable if endorser actedwith deceit.

NUMBER OF -AS+IEN 0ITHIN 0HICHTO PA OR MAEARRAN+EMENTS FORPAMENT

(rawer is given 5 daysafter receiving notice ofdishonor6

7ailure on his part resultsto a prima facie evidence

of knowledge on his part.

(rawer is given daysafter receiving notice ofdishonor6 failure on hispart results to a primafacie evidence of deceit.

NECESSIT OFNO0LE-+ERE+AR-IN+ THESUFFICIENC OFFUN-S AS ANELEMENT

The maker or drawer andissuer knows at the timeof the issuance that hedoes not have sufficientfund in or credit with thedrawee bank for thepayment of the check infull6

Thus, having noknowledge is a defense.

ot necessary that thedrawer should know atthe time that he issuedthe check that the fundsdeposited in the bankwere not sufficient tocover the amount of thecheck6

Thus, having noknowledge is -T adefense.

E,ISTENCE OFPRESUMPTION OF

Mere issuance of a checkthat is dishonored gives

o presumption ofknowledge arises


4/4

NO0LE-+E rise to the presumption ofknowledge ofinsufficiency of funds

'knowledge is not anecessary element to beconvicted for estafa.2.

UN-ER 0HATCIRCUMSTANCE APERSON 0HO -I- NOTISSUE CHEC INUESTION MA BEHEL- LIABLE

o such circumstancesince what is beingpunished is the%issuance& of worthlesscheck and not the%purpose& for which it wasissued.

This is possible when theperson conspires with theone who issued thecheck to deceive a thirdperson, and they actuallycommitted the crime.

9e is punished for hisguilty knowledge that hisco"accused had no fundsin the bank when he

negotiated it andobtained value from athird person throughdeceit. ':agado vs ;?2

A CONTINUIN+OFFENSE4

@)+. Thus, a personviolating this law may beprosecuted within theterritory where any of the

elements have beencommitted.

@es, thus a personviolating this law may beprosecuted within theterritory where any of the

elements have beencommitted.

bp 22 vs estafa

Documents