Thursday, May 2, 2013

BOUNCING CHECKS


When a person issues a bouncing check, he may be held liable for two crimes: one, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22); and, two, for estafa through bouncing checks under the Revised Penal Code.

Also known as worthless, rubber, or bum check, a bouncing check is a check that has insufficient or no funds to cover the amount appearing on its face.

Although one may be convicted for both crimes without violating the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy, a person held liable for violation of BP 22 is not necessarily liable for estafa through bouncing checks.

Because in estafa through bouncing checks, it is essential to show that the issuance of a bouncing check is the means used to obtain money or property. Mere issuance of a bouncing check is inadequate.

But a person held liable for estafa through bouncing checks is necessarily liable for violation of BP 22. 

Because in BP 22, the mere issuance of a bouncing check is already the offense in itself.

[References: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code, Peter Nierras vs. Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy and Hon. Antonio S. Lopez, G.R. Nos. 59568-76, January 11, 1990, Roberto Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 108738, June 17, 1994, Gemma Ilagan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166873, April 27, 2007, Albert Cordero Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 168069, April 27, 2007, Jaime Tan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 168543, April 27, 2007, People of the Philippines vs. Elizabeth Cardenas, G.R. No. 178064, February 10, 2009, and Teodoro A. Reyes vs. Ettore Rossi, G.R. No. 159823, February 18, 2013]