Estafa by postdating a check
Adopting our example above, it would appear then that A can also be charged for Violation of BP 22, apart from the estafa case, because BP 22 cases also cover issuances of bouncing checks for value received right there and then.It is Estafa when, among others, you issue an unfunded check with fraudulent intent in consideration of something of value you received.She further told Galope that the checks were not funded.When she learned that a case was filed against her for estafa, she confronted Marlyn Galope and the latter told her that money will not be given to her if she will not issue the said checks.
She gave the ten checks to Galope, signed the same albeit the space for the date, amount and payee were left blank so that the checks cannot be used for any negotiation. 22 involving the sum of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) arising from various checks issued by the respondent to the person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned therein shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years; provided that the fraud be committed by any of the following means: (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)Article 316 (other forms of swindling) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon “any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.”Article 318 (other deceits) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by “any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.” , 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, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.Again, the presence of all these requirements is important. Note that knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed when t 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.
Additionally, in BP 22, it is not a defense that upon the issuance of check you are not motivated with malice or fraudulent intent.
The statute has created the prima facie presumption evidently because "knowledge" which involves a state of mind would be difficult to establish. The Information alleged that on or about May 17, 1996 in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused Virginia (Baby) P.