THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
HON. JOSE SABIO, SR., City Judge of Cagayan de Oro and RANULFO M. SALAZAR
G.R. No. L-45490 November 20, 1978

RULINGS

The pertinent provisions of the law that is applicable with this case are;

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned herein below shall be punished by:

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender
had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount
of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that
said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence
of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

Considering the absence of an express provision in the law, the postdating or issuance of a bad
check in payment of a pre-existing obligation cannot be penalized as estafa by means of deceit,
otherwise, the legislature could have easily worded the amendatory act to that effect. Since the
language of the law is plain and unambiguous, the court finds no justification in entering into
further inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining the legislative intent. 21 Moreover, laws that
impose criminal liability are strictly construed. 22 The rule, therefore, that the issuance of a
bouncing check in payment of a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa has not at all
been altered by the amendatory act. 23
 ELIZA T. TAN
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G. R. No. 141466. January 19, 2001

RULINGS

The issue raised is whether petitioner is guilty of violation of B.P. 22 because when she issued
Philtrust Bank Check No. A000913 to FMF on February 28, 1993, she knew that there were
insufficient funds on deposit with the bank to honor the check upon presentment.
The elements of the offense defined and penalized in Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are:

1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check.

2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.

3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in
full upon its presentment.

4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.[8]

In this case, the third and fourth elements of the offense charged were not established or proved.

The banks representative testified that petitioners account at the time of the presentment of the
check she issued was funded, as she had a credit line to the extent of P25 million, much more
than the amount of the check issued. Even without relying on the credit line, petitioners bank
account covered the check she issued because even though there were some deposits that were
still uncollected the deposits became good and the bank certified that the check was funded.

The check in question was not issued without sufficient funds and was not dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds.[9] What was stamped on the check in question was Payment Stopped-
Funded at the same time DAUD meaning drawn against uncollected deposits. Even with
uncollected deposits, the bank may honor the check at its discretion in favor of favored clients, in
which case there would be no violation of B.P. 22. Petitioner requested the bank to stop payment
of the check for a valid reason, namely, that the account has been paid in cash.