We’re pretty sure there was a time when you became a party to a transaction, either as a beneficiary or a payer. Of course, as payment, it is preferable to receive cash, as you are sure that your payment was delivered to you in full without the need for any further action on your part. Now, like paying, writing a check is much more convenient, especially for substantial transactions, since you don’t have to worry about carrying cash and make sure all your expenses are accounted for and debited, down to the 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 in 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 then notices that his check bounced.
The above cases have arisen over the years and have caused an unfortunate chain reaction that led to the filing of one or both of the following cases: Batas Pambasa (BP) 22 Scam and Violation or the Bounced Check Law.
Bad Check Scam
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 executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
“For postdating a check, or writing 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. (Section 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code modified 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. Prejudice to the beneficiary of the same.
The most important element here is the damage dealt. 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, Andrew may be responsible for Fraud because he wrote a check knowing that he did not have sufficient funds to pay for the items he purchased from Bonifacio. The issuance of the bounced check here was with fraudulent intent.
Bad Check Act (BP 22)
Unlike Fraud, which is based on the RPC, BP 22 is enacted 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 drawn bank for the payment of said check in full at the time of its presentation, that the check is later rejected by the drawee 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. Have sufficient funds or credit in the drawee bank when you make or draw and issue a check, you will no longer maintain sufficient funds or a credit to cover the total amount of the check if it is presented within a period of ninety (90) days counted from the date that appears on it, so it is neglected by the drawee bank.
How can a person be found guilty of violating BP 22?
Violation of BP 22 can be brought against anyone when the following are present:
1. Preparation, draft and issuance of any check to request on account or for value;
2. Knowledge of the drawer, drawer or issuer that at the time of issuance they do not have sufficient funds or credit in the drawee bank for the payment of said check in full at the time of its presentation; Y
3. Failure to pay the check later by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds or credit, or failure to pay for the same reason if the drawer, without just cause, had not ordered the bank to suspend payment.
The same with Fraud, the presence of all these requirements is important. Otherwise, the BP 22 charge will not be applied. Note that knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed when it is proven that the issuer received a notification of non-payment and that within 5 days of receiving it, did not pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for its payment. Also, 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, Andrew can also be charged with Violation of BP 22, in addition to Fraud, because BP 22 cases also cover writing bad checks for value received.
Where is the disparity?
It is Fraud when, among others, you issue a check without funds with fraudulent intent in exchange for something of value that you received. Here the intention is material and good faith can be used as a defense.
It is a BP 22 Violation when you write a bad check, whether or not it is for an obligation you incurred prior to writing the check or not. Simply put, you are responsible for BP 22 whether or not you write a check for a present obligation.
