Estafa and Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.

22)
It is inevitable that we will encounter a check at least once in our
lifetime. This medium of commerce is still very common despite
the proliferation of credit cards. Sadly, with the increase in its use
there is also the increase in the number of individuals taking
advantage of checks to defraud other people.
For this reason, a provision in a Revised Penal Code was placed to
deal with this issue. This law however has defects and deemed
insufficient to answer certain situations, thus the Bouncing
Checks Law (B.P. 22) was passed into law.
For non-lawyers, these two laws may create confusion because of
its highly technical terminologies. As such, I have decided to write
this simple guide to aid those who seek more information about
estafa and the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22).
How is estafa through the issuance of bouncing checks
committed?
It is committed by means of any of the following false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
the check. (Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by R.A. 4885)
What are the elements of estafa through the issuance of
bouncing checks?
This form of estafa has the following elements:
Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued
Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
Damage to the payee thereof.
If any of these elements is not present then a person cannot be
held liable for estafa.
Remy went to a boutique to shop for jewelries. Since she
is a relative of the store owner, she was allowed to pay
later. After 30 days, Remy issued a check in payment of
the clothes she bought. The check bounced to the dismay
of the store owner. Can Remy be held liable for estafa?
No. Remy cannot be held liable for estafa because the check was
issued in payment of a pre-existing debt. As mentioned earlier,
estafa through the issuance of a bouncing check can be
committed only if the check was issued in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued. Note

however that while there is no estafa, nevertheless, Marian can

be held liable for another crime, which will be discussed below.
Can the issuance of bouncing checks give rise to other
offense aside from estafa?
Yes. A single act of issuance of bouncing checks may give rise to
several offenses such as estafa and violation of B.P. 22 or the
Bouncing Checks Law
How is a violation of the Bouncing Checks Law committed?
There are two possible ways by which this can be committed, to
wit:
Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or
for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment
Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he
makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient
funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check
if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the
drawee bank.
What are the elements of violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law?
An offence under this law is committed when the following
elements are present:
Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account
or for value;
Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of
issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; and
Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment.
How can there be presumption that the maker, drawer, or
issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds?
The presumption arises only after it is proved that the issuer
received a notice of dishonor and that within 5 days from receipt
thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or make
arrangement for its payment.