A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that the check would not be honored because B’s account had just been closed. The two then approached trader C whom they asked to change the check with cash, even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the assurance that the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s presentment of the check for payment on due date, it was dishonored because the account had already been closed.
What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for the loss of her P85,000.00? Explain. (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
C may file criminal actions for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC and for violation of BP 22 against both A and B. Under Article 315(2)(d) RPC, Estafa is committed when an unfunded check is issued
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 essential element distinguishes Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) RPC from a simple violation of BP 22?
Estafa requires deceit and damage where the unfunded check is the efficient cause of obtaining valuable consideration.
How are co-conspirators held liable when they actively participate in negotiating a worthless check to obtain cash?
Active co-conspirators in check fraud share equal criminal liability as co-principals.
What is the legal effect of prosecuting an accused for both Estafa under the RPC and violation of BP 22 for the same check?
Simultaneous prosecution under the RPC and BP 22 is constitutional because the offenses have distinct elements.
Under BP 22, what constitutes the gravamen of the offense of issuing a bouncing check?
Choices available with full access.
In a prosecution for Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) RPC, when must the unfunded check be issued to the payee?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Postdated Check Estafa
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Estafa is committed by postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds or insufficient funds in the bank. The issuance of the check must be the efficient cause that induced the payee to part with money or property simultaneously. When two individuals conspire to negotiate a check drawn on a closed bank account to cash out funds from a third party, both co-conspirators are criminally liable for Estafa through deceit.
2. Bouncing Checks Law
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the making, drawing, and issuance of any check knowing that the account has insufficient funds or has been closed. BP 22 is an offense malum prohibitum where criminal intent is irrelevant, and the mere act of issuing a worthless check constitutes the offense. Under the rule of conspiracy in penal law, a co-conspirator who actively participates in presenting and negotiating a worthless check to defraud a victim is held equally liable as a co-principal for violating BP 22.
3. Concurrent Criminal Prosecutions
A single act of issuing a worthless check to obtain cash or property gives rise to two distinct criminal offenses: Estafa under the Revised Penal Code and violation of BP 22. Prosecuting an accused simultaneously or successively for both offenses does not violate the constitutional rule against double jeopardy. Estafa is a malum in se crime requiring proof of deceit and damage, whereas BP 22 is a malum prohibitum crime punishing the mere issuance of a dishonored check. Both criminal actions can proceed independently to protect commercial reliability and property rights.