BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P.

22) (1987, 1990, insufficient funds in the drawee bank within ninety
1991, 1995, 1996, 2009, 2010, 2013 Bar) (90) days from the date appearing thereon.
Q: As security for a loan of P50, 000.00 he obtained Estafa (1989, 1998, 1990, 1991, 2005, 2010,
from his friend, Joseph David, payable not later than 2013, 2014 Bar)
17 April 1990, Roger Vasquez drew and delivered to
Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of
Joseph a check on due date. The check was
a lot, in special power of attorney naming him (B) as
dishonored on the ground of insufficiency of funds.
the attorney-in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B
After appropriate preliminary investigation, the City
mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power
Prosecutor filed against Roger an Information for
of attorney to obtain a loan of P8, 500. On the same
violation of B.P. Blg. No. 22 alleging therein, inter
day, both the special power of attorney and the
alia, that Roger “with intent to defraud, by means of
mortgage contract were duly registered in the
deceit, knowing fully well that he had no funds
Registry of Deeds.
and/or sufficient funds in the bank, for value
received, did then and there, willfully and Because of B’s failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the
feloniously, issue the aforesaid check” but “when the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a
said check was presented for encashment, said new title was issued. In March 1974, A discovered
check was dishonored and returned” on the ground that the property was already registered in the name
of insufficiency of funds. of X because an ejectment case filed against him by
X.
In a decision rendered thereafter, the trial judge
ruled that Roger cannot be convicted of the offense (a) If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or
charged because the information failed to allege that crimes would you charge B? Explain. (b) If you were
he knew, when he issued the check, that he would the counsel of B, what would be your defense?
have insufficient funds for its payment in full upon Discuss. (1993 Bar)
its presentment to the drawee bank.
A: (a) The crime committed is estafa thru
Is the judge correct? (1991 Bar) falsification of public document. (b) My defense will
be prescription because the crime was committed in
A: No. The allegation satisfies the legal definition of
1964 and almost twenty-nine years had already
the offense. The maker’s knowledge of insufficiency
elapsed since then. xxx
of his funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of
the check for lack of funds (People v. Lagui, 171 Q: On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corp.
SCRA 305). received from Maricar the sum of P500, 000 as
money market placement for sixty days at fifteen
Q: The accused was convicted under BP Blg. 22 for
(15) percent interest, and the President of said Corp.
having issued several checks which were
issued a check covering the amount including the
dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date
interest due thereon, postdated May 30, 1995. On
because the accused closed her account after the
the maturity date, however, Orpheus Financing
issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she
Corp. failed to deliver back Maricar's money
could not be convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason
placement with the corresponding interest earned,
of the closing of her account because said law applies
notwithstanding repeated demands upon said
solely to checks dishonored by reason of
Corporation to comply with its commitment. Did the
insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued
President of Orpheus Financing Corporation incur
the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the
any criminal liability for estafa for reason of the non-
bank. While she admits that she may be held liable
payment of the money market placement? Explain.
for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal
Code, she cannot however be found guilty of having A: No. The President of the financing corporation
violated B.P. Blg. 22. Is her contention correct? does not incur criminal liability for estafa because a
Explain. (1996 Bar) money market transaction partakes of the nature of
a loan, such that nonpayment thereof would not give
A: No. As long as the checks issued were issued to
rise to estafa through misappropriation or
apply on account or for value, and was dishonored
conversion. In money market placement, there is
upon presentation for payment to the drawee bank
transfer of ownership of the money to be invested
for lack of insufficient funds on their due date, such
and therefore the liability for its return is civil in
act falls within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. Said law
nature. Q: A sold a washing machine to B on credit
expressly punishes any person who may have
with the understanding that B could return the
appliance within two weeks if after testing the same, should be acquitted of theft because being the
B decided not to buy it. Two weeks lapsed without B depositary, he had juridical possession of the
returning the appliance. A found out that B had sold merchandise. VR also moved for the reconsideration
the washing machine to a third party. Is B liable for of the decision insisting that since he was acquitted
estafa? Why? (2002 Bar) of the crime charged, and that he purchased the
merchandise in good faith, he is not obligated to
A: No. B is not liable for estafa because he is not just
return the merchandise to its owner. Rule on the
an entrustee of the washing machine which he sold;
motions with reasons. (2005 Bar)
he is the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the
washing machine to him. The sale being on credit, B A: The motion for reconsideration of DD should be
as buyer is only liable for the unpaid price of the denied.
washing machine; his obligation is only a civil
In this case, there being no proof that title to the
obligation. There is no felonious misappropriation
goods was transferred to DD, only physical
that could constitute estafa.
possession is presumed transferred to and obtained
Q: A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to by DD. (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. No. L-16961, September
discuss B's financial problems. On his way, one of A's 19, 1921)
car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting,
The principal distinction between the two crimes is
he asked B to lend him money to buy a new spare
that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the
tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank deposits,
accused received the property and converts it to his
leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a
own use or benefit. However, there maybe theft even
replenishment of his account soon, B issued A a
if the accused has possession of the property, if he
postdated check with which A negotiated for a new
was entrusted only with the material or physical
tire. When presented, the check bounced for lack of
(natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his
funds. The tire company filed a criminal case against
misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but
A and B. What would be the criminal liability, if any,
if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his
of each of the two accused? Explain. (2003 Bar)
conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or
A: A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in estafa (Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429, January 29,
buying a new tire for his car may only be prosecuted 1990).
for estafa if he was aware at the time of such
While VR is acquitted of theft, such acquittal does
negotiation that the check has no sufficient funds in
not of itself negate civil liability of VR to return the
the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not criminally
property stolen by DD. Civil liability on the part of
liable.
VR exists despite acquittal since his acquittal is
B who accommodated A with his check may premised on the finding that his liability is only civil
nevertheless be prosecuted under B.P. 22 for having in nature. (De Guzman v. Alva, 51 OG 1311).
issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance
that it has no funds in the bank and that A will
negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may
not be prosecuted for estafa because the facts
indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud
in issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously,
B issued the postdated check only to help A; criminal
intent or dolo is absent.
Q: DD was engaged in the warehouse business.
Sometime in November 2004, he was in dire need of
money. He, thus, sold merchandise deposited in his
warehouse to VR for P500, 000.00. DD was charged
with theft, as principal, while VR as accessory. The
court convicted DD of theft but acquitted VR on the
ground that he purchased the merchandise in good
faith. However, the court ordered VR to return the
merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered DD
to refund the P500, 000.00 to VR. DD moved for the
reconsideration of the decision insisting that he