Dora gave Elen several pieces of jewelry for sale on commission basis. They agreed that Elen would remit the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold items to Dora within sixty days. The period expired without Elen remitting the proceeds of the sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. Dora demanded by phone that Elen turn over the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold pieces of jewelry. Elen promised to do so the following day. El en still failed to make good on her promise but instead issued post-dated checks. Thereafter, Dora made several more demands, the last of which was in writing, but they were all unheeded. When the checks were deposited in Dora’s bank account, the checks were returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Elen was charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Will the charges against Elen prosper? Explain. (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, both charges for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC and for violation of BP 22 will prosper against Elen. Under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC, Estafa through misappropriation occurs when property received on commission with the duty
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What element is required for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code?
Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) requires receiving personal property under a duty to return or account for it.
Why does a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 apply even if the check was issued for a pre-existing obligation?
BP 22 is malum prohibitum, making the check's underlying cause or pre-existing nature irrelevant.
What type of possession is transferred when jewelry is delivered on a commission basis for sale or return?
Commission agreement transfers juridical possession of the goods to the commission agent.
Does prosecuting an offender for both Estafa and BP 22 violate the rule against double jeopardy?
Choices available with full access.
What failure raises the presumption of misappropriation in estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Estafa by Misappropriation
Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, estafa is committed by misappropriating or converting personal property received under trust, commission, administration, or any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or return the same. When an agent receives goods on commission basis to sell or return unsold items within an agreed period, the agent acquires juridical possession. Failure to account for the proceeds of the sale or to return the unsold goods upon demand creates a legal presumption that the agent misappropriated the property for personal gain to the damage of the owner.
2. Bouncing Checks Law
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, the mere issuance of a check that is subsequently dishonored upon presentment due to insufficient funds constitutes a criminal offense. BP 22 is classified as malum prohibitum, meaning that deceit or criminal intent is not an essential element of the crime. The law penalizes the act of making or issuing a worthless check regardless of whether it was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, as a guarantee, or as part of a commercial commission transaction.
3. Dual Liability Principle
Under Philippine criminal law jurisprudence, a single factual scenario involving the issuance of unfunded checks to cover misappropriated commission funds can give rise to dual criminal liability for both estafa and violation of BP 22. Prosecution for estafa penalizes the fraudulent abuse of confidence or conversion of property under Article 315, whereas prosecution under BP 22 penalizes the public nuisance caused by issuing worthless commercial checks. The two crimes possess distinct elements, allowing simultaneous prosecution without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.