Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjiereadily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie, as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. When the checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint against Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several amounts from Mr. Edas partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and insisted that the complaint should continue despite the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted the partial payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Mr. Ed is liable for one count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the RPC and five counts of violation of BP 22. Under Article 315(2)(d) of the RPC, Estafa by postdating a check requires that issuance be the
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
Why is Mr. Ed liable for Estafa for the first three checks but NOT for the last two checks?
Estafa by postdated check requires the check to be the efficient cause of defraudation, which is absent when covering pre-existing debts.
What element is necessary to establish a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency under BP 22?
BP 22 requires receipt of a notice of dishonor and failure to pay or make arrangements within five banking days.
What is the effect of Mr. Benjie accepting partial payments from Mr. Ed during preliminary investigation?
Acceptance of partial payments after the consummation of the offense does not extinguish criminal liability.
How does BP 22 differ fundamentally from Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code?
Choices available with full access.
Why does Mr. Ed's defense of lack of a formal demand letter FAIL under BP 22 in this case?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Estafa by Postdated Checks
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, estafa by postdating or issuing a check is committed when a check is issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of its issuance. Defraudation requires that the check be the efficient cause or principal inducement for the seller to part with property. When postdated checks are issued subsequent to the delivery of goods to cover a pre-existing debt, deceit is absent at the time of contracting, and the drawer cannot be held criminally liable for estafa for those specific subsequent checks.
2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a worthless check made and issued for account or for value. Unlike estafa, BP 22 is a malum prohibitum offense where deceit or intent to defraud is completely immaterial. To establish a prima facie case of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under BP 22, the drawer must receive a notice of dishonor and be given five banking days to pay or make arrangements. Failure to pay within that statutory period perfects the offense.
3. Novation in Criminal Cases
Under Philippine criminal jurisprudence, novation or partial payment made after the commission of a crime does not extinguish criminal liability. Once a felony under the Revised Penal Code or a statutory offense under a special penal law like BP 22 is fully consummated, subsequent compromise agreements or acceptance of partial payments during preliminary investigation merely affect civil liability. Criminal liability is a public crime against the State that cannot be compromised by private parties, meaning partial payments accepted by the offended party will not bar or abort criminal prosecution against the accused.