Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000, payable in six (6) months and, as payment for the loan, Rashid issued a postdated check for the said amount plus the agreed interest. Rashid assured Rene that the account would have sufficient funds on maturity date. On that date, Rene presented the check to the drawee bank for payment but it was dishonored for the reason that it was drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF).
Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of dishonor of the check and demanded the latter to make good the same within five (5) days from notice. After the lapse of the five (5)-day notice, Rene redeposited the check with the drawee bank but it was again dishonored for the same reason, i.e., DAIF. Rene thereafter filed two (2) separate criminal actions against Rashid: (1) Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, i.e, estafa committed by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation without sufficient funds in the bank; and (2) Violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.
(a) Can he be held liable under both actions? (2.5%)
(b) If the check is presented for payment after four (4) months, but before it becomes stale, can the two actions still proceed? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) Yes, Rashid can be held liable under both actions; and (b) yes, both criminal actions can still proceed even if the check is presented after four months. Under Article 315(2)(d) of the RPC and BP 22, issuing a bouncing check gives
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
Does prosecuting an issuer under both Article 315(2)(d) of the RPC and BP 22 constitute double jeopardy?
Prosecuting under both Estafa and BP 22 does not constitute double jeopardy because the two crimes have distinct elements.
What is the legal effect under BP 22 if a check is presented for payment four months after its date?
Presentment beyond ninety days under BP 22 merely negates the statutory presumption, requiring independent evidence of knowledge.
What element is required to convict an issuer for Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the RPC?
Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) requires deceit employed prior to or simultaneous with contracting the obligation.
Does the 90-day presentment period under Section 2 of BP 22 apply to prosecutions for Estafa under the RPC?
Choices available with full access.
Why can both Estafa and BP 22 actions proceed even if presentment occurs four months after issuance?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Distinct Criminal Offenses
Under Philippine law, the prosecution of an issuer of a bouncing check under both Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code for Estafa and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Estafa is a crime against property involving deceit and damage, whereas violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a malum prohibitum offense against public order. Because each offense requires distinct statutory elements, conviction or prosecution under one law does not bar prosecution under the other.
2. Presentment Period Presumption
Under Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the failure of the drawer to pay the amount of the check within five banking days after receiving written notice of dishonor creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds, provided the check was presented for payment within ninety days from its date. Presentment beyond ninety days does not destroy the cause of action, but merely shifts the burden onto the prosecution to prove actual knowledge of insufficient funds by independent evidence.
3. Estafa Presentment Requirement
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the essential elements of Estafa by postdated check are the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation, lack of sufficient funds, and deceit in assuring the payee of funding. Unlike Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22, Article 315(2)(d) contains no ninety-day presentment restriction. So long as the check is presented before it becomes stale, criminal prosecution for Estafa remains fully actionable.