We’re very sure there is certainly a stage in time that you grew to become bash to a transaction, possibly as payee or payer. Of program as payee, obtaining funds is considerably most well-liked as you are certain that your payment was specified to you in entire sans any further more action essential from your finish. Now as payer, issuing a verify is so substantially far more effortless, particularly for substantial transactions, as you would not have to stress about bringing hard cash and generating certain that all your costs are accounted and debited for, up to the past centavo.
It’s good if all transactions went effortlessly with no any hitch. On the other hand, with the two parties building and getting payment all in good religion. But what if you were being conned by a person you experienced the error of trusting? Or what if you issued a check as a demonstrate of excellent faith to shut out on a deal but at the time of issuance, the account has insufficient cash and you built a psychological notice to replenish the account as shortly as you acquired paid out. Alas, you then notice that your examine bounced.
The previously mentioned scenarios had surged about the decades and has brought about an unfortunate chain response which prompted the submitting of both or the two the pursuing scenarios: Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambasa (BP) 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.
Estafa By means of Issuance of Unfunded Checks
The criminal offense of Estafa is punished beneath the Revised Penal Code. A person can be held guilty for Estafa by usually means of issuing a bouncing test with the use of untrue pretenses or fraudulent functions executed prior to or concurrently with the fee of the fraud:
“By postdating a check out, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender experienced no money in the bank, or his money deposited therein ended up not sufficient to go over the total of the verify. (Report 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 4885)”
How can a particular person be held responsible for Estafa?
Less than the RPC, the next things are needed to hold a individual responsible of Estafa:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check out in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the test was issued
2. Insufficiency of funds to address the verify, and
3. Damage to the payee thereof.
The most essential factor below is the damage prompted. Absent any of the adhering to aspects, a person are unable to be held liable for Estafa.
Circumstance in point:
Andres owns and operates a investing great business enterprise and purchased merchandise from Bonifacio and issued an unfunded check out in thing to consider of the products received.
In this scenario, Andres can be held liable for Estafa simply because he issued a check understanding it to be with out adequate cash to pay the items he purchased from Bonifacio. The issuance of the bounced check below was with fraudulent intent.
Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)
Not like Estafa which has its basis below the RPC, BP 22 is enacted through a special law. A human being can be charged for violation of BP 22 when he commits the next acts:
1. Generating or drawing and issuing any verify to use on account or for worth, figuring out at the time of issue that he does not have ample funds in or credit score with the drawee bank for the payment of this kind of verify in full upon its presentment, which test is subsequently dishonored by the drawee lender for insufficiency of money or credit rating or would have been dishonored for the exact purpose experienced not the drawer, with no any valid motive, purchased the financial institution to quit payment
2. Acquiring sufficient resources in or credit score with the drawee lender when he makes or attracts and challenges a check out, shall fall short to maintain ample funds or to manage a credit rating to deal with the comprehensive volume of the test if introduced within just a period of time of ninety (90) days from the day showing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee lender.
How can a person be held guilty for Violation of BP 22?
Violation of BP 22 can be filed from any man or woman when the pursuing are existing:
1. Creating, drawing and issuance of any verify to use for account or for price
2. Awareness of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of problem he does not have adequate resources in or credit score with the drawee lender for the payment of these kinds of test in comprehensive on its presentment and
3. Subsequent dishonor of the look at by the drawee financial institution for insufficiency of funds or credit score or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without the need of any legitimate trigger, purchased the financial institution to quit payment.
Exact with Estafa, the presence of all these necessities is essential. Usually, the demand of BP 22 will not attach. Be aware that know-how of insufficiency of cash is presumed when it is proved that the issuer received a see of dishonor and that within 5 days from receipt thereof, he unsuccessful to pay back the volume of the test or make arrangement for its payment. Also, in BP 22, fantastic faith is immaterial. Meaning, the mere issuance of an unfunded verify now consummates the crime.
Using the very same case in point earlier mentioned, Andres can also be billed for Violation of BP 22, other than Estafa, due to the fact BP 22 instances also include issuances of bouncing checks for benefit obtained.
The place does the disparity lie?
It is Estafa when, between some others, you challenge an unfunded examine with fraudulent intent in thought of a thing of benefit you gained. Listed here intent is content and excellent faith may possibly be employed as a protection.
It is a situation for Violation of BP 22 when you concern an unfunded check whether or not it is for an obligation you contracted prior to the issuance of the test or not. Merely put, you are liable for BP 22 whether or not you situation a test for a existing or a earlier obligation.