Issuing a bad check can give rise to two distinct offenses in the Philippines: estafa under the Revised Penal Code, and the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). This article concerns estafa by postdated or bouncing check. This form of estafa is committed by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation, when the offender had no funds in the bank, or their funds deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The essential feature that makes it estafa is deceit: the issuance of the worthless check must be the efficient cause or means by which the offender obtained money, goods, or property from the offended party; that is, the check was issued concurrently with or prior to the transaction, inducing the other party to part with their money or property. If the check was issued merely in payment of a pre-existing obligation (a debt already incurred before the check), there is generally no estafa, because the check did not cause the other party to part with anything; at most it may be BP 22. The law provides that the failure of the drawer to deposit sufficient funds within three days from receiving notice of dishonor is prima facie evidence of deceit. Estafa by check is distinct from BP 22 in that estafa requires deceit and damage and is a crime against property with a penalty that scales with the amount defrauded, while BP 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check regardless of whether deceit or damage is present. The same act may give rise to both charges. So issuing a bad check to induce another to part with money or goods is estafa, heavier than the malum prohibitum of BP 22.
Two Possible Offenses
A bad check can trigger estafa (Revised Penal Code) and/or BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). This concerns estafa by postdated/bouncing check — postdating or issuing a check with no or insufficient funds.
Deceit Is the Key
What makes it estafa is deceit: the worthless check must be the efficient cause that induced the other party to part with money or goods — issued concurrently with or prior to the transaction, not for a pre-existing debt.
Estafa vs. BP 22
Non-funding within three days of notice of dishonor is prima facie evidence of deceit. Estafa needs deceit and damage and scales with the amount; BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check regardless of deceit. The same act may give rise to both.
Practical Takeaways
- A bad check used to induce a deal is estafa;
- A check for a pre-existing debt is generally not estafa (at most BP 22);
- Estafa (deceit + damage) is heavier than BP 22 (mere issuance).
Frequently Asked Questions
When is issuing a bad check estafa? When the check is postdated or issued without sufficient funds and its issuance is the efficient cause that induced the offended party to part with money, goods, or property, that is, the check was the means of deceit.
Is issuing a check for a past debt estafa? Generally no. If the check was issued merely in payment of a pre-existing obligation, there is no estafa, because the check did not cause the other party to part with anything. It may at most be a violation of BP 22.
How is estafa by check different from BP 22? Estafa requires deceit and damage and is a crime against property with a penalty scaling with the amount defrauded. BP 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check regardless of deceit or damage.
What is the effect of failing to fund the check after notice? The failure of the drawer to deposit sufficient funds within three days from receiving notice of dishonor is prima facie evidence of deceit for estafa.
This commentary is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a licensed attorney.
If you have questions about your rights or options under Philippine law, our firm is available to assist. You may reach us via Viber or WhatsApp, call us at 0995 433 5550, or send an email to vivasnobles@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.