BP 22

CHECK
- UNDER NG SEC 185, ACT 2031 IS A BILL OF EXCHANGE DRAWN ON A BANK PAYABLE ON DEMAND. EXCEPT AS HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED,
THE PROVISION OF THIS ACT APPLICABLE TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE ON DEMAND APPLY TO A CHECK.
APPLY ANG BP 22 SA ALL KINDS OF CHECK IN FACT THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE DISTINGUISTION TO WHAT KIND OF CHECK
MALA IN SE VS MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE
- YUNG ACT OR OMISSION LAGI SA PUNISHABLE SIYA THE LAW PROHIBITED
- ITO YUNG PUNISHABLE UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
MALA PROHIBITA
-ITO YUNG PUNISHABLE UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
BOUNCING CHECK LAW (BP 22)
WHAT THE LAW PUNISHES

- ISSUANCE OF A BOUNCING CHECK NOT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS ISSUED NOR THE TERM AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO ITS
ISSUANCE. THE MERE ACT OF ISSUING A WORTHLESS CHECK IS MALUM PROHIBITUM
- 90 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE
-IF COMMITS A VIOLATION AND LIABLE FOR IMPRISONMENT OF 30DAYS OR A FINE A DOUBLE THE VALUE OF CHECK OR BOTH
-IF A GOODS IS FAKE THE PAYMENT IS STOP WITH VALID REASON
-THE CHECK HAS BEEN CLEARED
EFFECTIVITY: JUNE 29, 1979
SEC 1
CHECK WITHOUT SUCFFCIENT FUNDS

-Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues 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, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than
thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a 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.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, 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.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer
shall be liable under this Act.
SECTION 2
EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS

Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because
of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or
makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee.
Section 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to pay the same to the holder
thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written, printed, or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's
dishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided, That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall
always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions under this Act, the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and
dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon or attached thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid,
shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor
thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on such dishonored check.
Not with standing receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with
such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such be the fact.
Section 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank for
the payment of such check.
Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. - Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Section 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision of this Act be declared unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall continue to be
in force.
Section 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette.
Estafa vs BP22
In Estafa, there must be fraudulent representation on the part of the offender. In contrast, BP 22 does not concern itself with the issuer's intent
to deceive1âwp
1. Rimando v. Winston, GR No. 203583, 13 October 2014
Facts
An Information dated January 21, 2004 was filed before the RTC charging Rimando of the crime of estafa through the use of false manifestations
and fraudulent representations (estafa case).5 According to the prosecution, Rimando enticed Sps. Aldaba to invest in her business under the
assurance that it is stable and that their money would earn 8% monthly interest. 6 Convinced by Rimandoï¿½s proposal and taking into
consideration their long friendship, Sps. Aldaba gave Rimando a check in the amount of P500,000.00 as investment in her business. In turn,
Rimando gave Sps. Aldaba three (3) postdated checks, one for P500,000.00 and the other two (2) for P40,000.00 each, and made them sign an
investment contract with Multitel International Holding Corporation (Multitel). Upon maturity of the checks, Sps. Aldaba attempted to encash
the same but were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. 7 This prompted Sps. Aldaba to demand Rimando to make good the
said checks, but to no avail. Hence, they were constrained to file a criminal complaint for estafa against her.8cralawlawlibrary In her defense,
Rimando denied her friendship with Sps. Aldaba and that she enticed them to invest in her own business, as she had none. According to her, she
only referred them to Multitel Investment Manager Jaimelyn 9 Cayaban who handled their investment. 10 She also maintained that she only
issued the three (3) postdated checks to accommodate them while waiting for the check from Multitel, but when the latter issued the check,
Sps. Aldaba refused to accept it so she can be held liable in case their nvestment fails. 11cralawlawlibrary
Meanwhile, Sps. Aldaba also filed a criminal case against Rimando for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22 12 before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila, Branch VI, docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. 407191-193 (BP 22 cases). 13 On July 7, 2010, Rimando was acquitted 14 in the BP 22
cases on the ground of reasonable doubt, with a declaration that the act or omission from which liability may arise does not exist.

BP 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BP 22

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BP 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHECK

MALA IN SE VS MALA PROHIBITA

BOUNCING CHECK LAW (BP 22)

WHAT THE LAW PUNISHES

EFFECTIVITY: JUNE 29, 1979

CHECK WITHOUT SUCFFCIENT FUNDS

EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS

1. Rimando v. Winston, GR No. 203583, 13 October 2014

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.