In August 2018, B entered into a contract with S for the purchase of the latter’s second-hand car in the amount of ₱400,000.00 payable in two (2) equal monthly installments. Simultaneously with the signing of the contract and S’s turnover of the car keys, B executed, issued, and delivered two (2) post-dated checks, all payable to S, with the assurances that they will be honored on their respective maturity dates.
However, all two (2) checks were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Consequently, notices therefore were duly issued to and received by B, but this notwithstanding, no payment arrangements were made by him. Further, upon S’s investigation, it was uncovered that B’s checking account had only ₱50,000.00 when its was opened in June 2018 and no further deposits were made after that. S also found out that B knew fully well of such circumstance at the time he issued the two (2) checks.
What crime/s should B be charges with and for how many counts? Explain (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
B should be charged with one (1) count of Estafa and two (2) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, Estafa occurs when an unfunded check is issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation. Under *delito continuado*, multiple checks issued under a single criminal intent to defraud constitute one count of Estafa. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the gravamen is issuing a worthless check, making each bouncing check a separate count.
Here, B issued two postdated checks simultaneously with the car purchase as the efficient cause of defraudation, making him liable for one count of Estafa under *delito continuado*. Because B issued two distinct unfunded checks knowing his account lacked funds, he is separately liable for two counts of B.P. Blg. 22.
Consequently, B should be charged with one count of Estafa under the Revised Penal Code and two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
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 does issuing two postdated checks simultaneously for a single car purchase constitute only one count of estafa?
Multiple postdated checks delivered under a single criminal intent to defraud constitute a single continued count of estafa.
How many counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are committed when two separate unfunded checks are issued and dishonored?
Each bouncing check issued and delivered constitutes a distinct and separate count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
What is the indispensable element to sustain a conviction for Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code?
Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) requires that the unfunded check be issued simultaneously with contracting the obligation as deceit.
How does criminal intent differ between Estafa under the Revised Penal Code and violation of B.P. Blg. 22?
Estafa requires deceit and criminal intent, while B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law where the act itself is penalized.
What is the legal effect of receiving a notice of dishonor and failing to make payment arrangements within the statutory period?
Failure to pay or arrange payment after notice creates a statutory presumption of deceit and knowledge of insufficiency.
Learn more about these topics
1. Estafa by Checks
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, estafa is committed by issuing a postdated check or a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds were insufficient, provided the check was issued simultaneously with the contracting of the obligation as the efficient cause of defraudation. Deceit is presumed when the drawer fails to deposit the necessary amount within three banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor.
2. BP 22 Offenses
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a worthless check knowing at the time of issuance that there are insufficient funds. B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law where the offense is malum prohibitum and criminal intent is immaterial. Each bouncing check issued and delivered constitutes a distinct and separate count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, regardless of whether the checks were issued under a single transaction or contract.
3. Delito Continuado
Under the doctrine of delito continuado, or continued crime, a series of acts performed by the offender under a single criminal resolution or impulse constitutes only a single count of estafa. When multiple postdated checks are issued simultaneously to cover a single purchase or obligation under a single fraudulent scheme, the series of dishonors forms part of one continued offense of estafa. However, this doctrine does not apply to B.P. Blg. 22, where each check remains a separate crime.