We’re pretty sure there was a time when you became a party to a transaction, either as a payee or a payer. Of course, as a payment, it is preferable to receive cash, since you are sure that your payment was delivered to you in full without any further action on your part. Now, like paying, writing a check is much more convenient, especially for substantial transactions, since you wouldn’t have to worry about carrying cash and making sure all your expenses are accounted for and debited, down to the last penny.

It’s great if all transactions went smoothly. However, both parties make and receive payment in good faith. But what if you were scammed by someone you made the mistake of trusting? Or what if you wrote a check as a show of good faith to close a deal, but at the time of writing, the account had insufficient funds and you made a mental note to replenish the account as soon as you were paid. Unfortunately, he later notices that his check bounced.

The above cases have cropped up over the years and have caused an unfortunate chain reaction that led to the filing of one or both of the following cases: Robas Pambasa (BP) 22 Fraud and Violation or the Bounced Check Act.

Scam by Issuing Bad Checks

The crime of Fraud is penalized in the Reformed Penal Code. You can be found guilty of Fraud by issuing a bad check under false pretenses or fraudulent acts carried out prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

“For postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited in it were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. (Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 4885)”

How can a person be found guilty of fraud?

According to the RPC, the following elements are necessary to convict a person of Fraud:

1. Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of issuance of the check

2. Insufficient funds to cover the check, and

3. Damage to the beneficiary thereof.

The most important element here is the damage done. In the absence of any of the following elements, a person cannot be held responsible for Fraud.

Case in point:

Andres owns and operates a commercial goods business and purchased merchandise from Bonifacio and wrote a bad check in consideration of the goods received.

In this scenario, Andrés may be liable for Scam because he wrote a check knowing that he did not have sufficient funds to pay for the items he purchased from Bonifacio. The check bounced here was issued with fraudulent intent.

Bad Check Law (BP 22)

Unlike Scam, which is based on the RPC, BP ​​22 is promulgated through a special law. A person can be charged with a violation of BP 22 when he commits the following acts:

1. Make or draw and issue any check to apply to an account or value, knowing at the time of issuance that you do not have sufficient funds or credit in the issued bank for the payment of said check in its entirety at the time of its presentation, that the check is subsequently rejected by the drawn bank for insufficient funds or credit or would have been rejected for the same reason if the drawer, without any valid reason, had not ordered the bank to stop payment;

2. Having sufficient funds or credit in the bank issued when you make or draw and issue a check, you will cease to maintain sufficient funds or credit to cover the full amount of the check if it is presented within a period of ninety (90) days counted from the date it appears on it, so it is disregarded by the drawee bank.

How can a person be convicted of a violation of BP 22?

A violation of BP 22 can be brought against any person when the following are present:

1. Preparation, drawing and issuance of any check to request on account or value;

2. Knowledge of the drawer, drawer or issuer that at the time of issuance he does not have sufficient funds or credit in the drawn bank for the payment of said check in its entirety at the time of its presentation; and

3. Lack of subsequent payment of the check by the bank drawn due to insufficient funds or credit or lack of payment for the same reason if the drawer, without just cause, had not ordered the bank to suspend payment.

The same with Scam, the presence of all these requirements is important. Otherwise, the BP 22 charge will not apply. Note that knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed when it is proven that the issuer received a notice of non-payment and that within 5 days of receipt of the notice, did not pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for its payment. Furthermore, in BP 22, good faith is irrelevant. That is, the issuance of a bad check by the mother already consumes the crime.

Using the same example above, Andrés can also be charged with BP 22 Violation, in addition to Fraud, because the BP 22 cases also cover the issuance of bad checks for the amount received.

Where is the disparity?

It is a scam when, among other things, you issue a bad check with fraudulent intent in exchange for something of value you received. Here the intention is material and good faith can be used as a defense.

It is a BP 22 Violation case when you write a bad check, whether or not it is due to an obligation you incurred before the check was issued or not. Simply put, you are responsible for BP 22 whether or not you write a check for a present obligation.