Difference Between Estafa under the Revised Penal Code and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The “Bouncing Checks Law”)
(Philippine legal perspective — current as of 17 April 2025)
For academic discussion only; not a substitute for individualized legal advice.
1. Historical and Statutory Foundations
| Aspect | Estafa (Art. 315 RPC) | BP 22 |
|---|---|---|
| Enactment | Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code, 1932 (in force 1 Jan 1933) | 3 Apr 1979, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 |
| Purpose | Protect property rights by punishing deceit and abuse of confidence | Protect the banking system and public faith in commercial paper; deter circulation of worthless checks |
| Nature of Offense | Mala in se (inherently wrongful) | Mala prohibita (punished because the law forbids it) |
| Classification | Crimes against property (swindling) | Special penal statute (economic offense) |
2. Textual Anchors
Estafa by post‑dated or dishonored check is in Article 315 §2(d): “Issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the drawer knows that he does not have sufficient funds… and damage or prejudice results.”
BP 22 states: “Any person who makes, draws and issues any check… knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds… shall be punished…”
3. Elements Compared
| Element | Estafa (Art. 315 §2 [d]) | BP 22 |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Act | Issuance of a check as inducement to part with money/property | Making, drawing, or issuing any check |
| 2. Knowledge of insufficiency | Required and must coincide with the intent to defraud | Presumed from dishonor but rebuttable; specific intent not necessary |
| 3. Dishonor | Check must be dishonored for any cause | Dishonor for insufficiency OR account closure/stop‑payment |
| 4. Notice of dishonor | Not an element, but often proves deceit | Mandatory written notice; drawer has 5 banking days (personal notice) or 15 days (registered mail) to make good |
| 5. Damage or prejudice | Indispensable; prosecution fails without proof of actual loss | Not required; the gravamen is the act of issuing a worthless check |
| 6. Venue | Where deceit was perpetrated or where check was received | Where check was drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored |
4. Penalties and Ancillary Consequences
| Topic | Estafa | BP 22 |
|---|---|---|
| Imprisonment | Depends on amount defrauded (Art. 315 penultimate & last paragraphs, as amended by RA 10951): • ≤ ₱40,000 → arresto mayor • > ₱40,000 to ≤ ₱1.2 M → prision correccional • > ₱1.2 M → prision mayor |
30 days ‑ 1 year or fine × not > double the amount of the check but not < ₱10,000, or both; each check a separate offense |
| Civil Liability | Automatic under Art. 100 RPC (actual damages + interest) | Separate civil action; payment within 30 days from filing may extinguish criminal liability (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103 as amended by RA 10707) |
| Probation Eligibility | Estafa > ₱40,000 usually not eligible if penalty exceeds 6 years | Always eligible (penalty ≤ 1 year), subject to court discretion |
| Prescription | 15 years if penalty > 6 years; 10 years otherwise (Art. 90 RPC) | 4 years from commission or discovery (Act No. 3326) |
| Compromise/Settlement | May extinguish civil, not criminal, liability after information is filed (People v. Pichay) | Full payment before judgment requires dismissal (Sec. 1, BP 22 with RA 10707 amendments) |
5. Intent, Good Faith, and Defenses
| Point of Law | Estafa | BP 22 |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud or deceit | Essential. Absence of intent to defraud is a complete defense. | Irrelevant. BP 22 punishes the act per se; good faith is limited to proving lack of knowledge of insufficiency at issuance. |
| Good‑faith payment after dishonor | Mitigating only; does not erase liability once crime consummated | If made within notice period, bars prosecution; if after filing but before conviction, can lead to dismissal or probation |
| Double jeopardy | Same check can give rise to both Estafa and BP 22 (Lozano v. Martinez; People v. Sabio). They penalize different aspects, so prosecution under both is not barred. |
6. Procedural Distinctions
Demand/Notice
Estafa — demand letter optional; prosecution may proceed on evidence of deceit and damage.
BP 22 — written notice jurisdictional; absence is fatal to the case (Davao Light v. CA).Affidavit of Desistance / Compromise
Estafa — does not ipso facto compel dismissal; prosecution is in the State’s hands.
BP 22 — upon payment, the court is mandated to dismiss (RA 10707).Arrest & Bail
Estafa — bailable but usually higher bond; preliminary investigation required if amount > ₱5,000.
BP 22 — issuances covered by Department Circular No. 12‑2000 (no automatic arrest; allow voluntary surrender).Participating Witnesses
Estafa — offended party’s testimony re: inducement and loss is critical.
BP 22 — bank records and SPOA custodian suffice; complainant’s appearance often limited.
7. Selected Jurisprudence
| Case | G.R. No. | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Lozano v. Martinez | L‑63419 (18 Dec 1986) | BP 22 is constitutional; nothing in Art. III §20 (no imprisonment for debt) forbids punishment for issuing a bad check. |
| People v. Sabio, Jr. | 53659‑60 (23 Sep 1981) | Drawing a worthless check may constitute both Estafa and BP 22; each offense has distinct elements. |
| Nierras v. Dacuycuy | 13816 (29 Aug 1962) | In Estafa, mere failure to deposit funds is not deceit unless it induced parting with property. |
| Vaca v. Court of Appeals | 131714 (6 Feb 1998) | Notice of dishonor is indispensable in BP 22; registry receipts alone are insufficient without proof the drawer actually received them. |
| Abundo v. People | 188567 (11 Apr 2018) | Proof of loss is indispensable in Estafa; absence thereof warrants acquittal even if check bounced. |
8. Why Both Laws Co‑Exist
- Complementary Protection. Estafa combats fraudulent inducements; BP 22 punishes the circulation of valueless negotiable instruments even absent deceit.
- Commercial Confidence. BP 22 stabilizes banking and trade by compelling drawers to honor checks within a brief curative window.
- Policy Balance. Courts routinely encourage compromise (Administrative Circular 12‑2000, Circular 57‑97) yet retain punitive teeth where offenders persist in bad‑check practices.
9. Practical Tips for Practitioners and Business‑Owners
- Always Send Written Notice. Use registered mail with return card or personal service; track dates to compute the 5‑/15‑day grace period.
- Document the Transaction. For Estafa prosecutions, retain contracts, receipts, and proof that the check induced you to part with value.
- Consider Civil & Administrative Remedies. Beyond criminal action, file a collection suit or a complaint with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas if the drawer is a covered entity.
- Use Post‑Dated Checks Prudently. Courts view them as evidence of intent to defraud when unaccompanied by adequate funds.
- Leverage Probation & Mediation. For first‑time BP 22 offenders, probation coupled with full restitution is often the most efficient resolution.
10. Key Take‑Aways
- Estafa (Art. 315) punishes fraud, requires damage, and carries heavier penalties that scale with the amount defrauded.
- BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, is intent‑neutral, and supplies an “escape hatch” — pay within the notice period or even before judgment and you walk free.
- The same bad check can spawn two separate crimes, but each demands proof of its own unique elements.
- Procedural missteps — especially failure to prove notice of dishonor — doom many BP 22 cases, while the Achilles’ heel of Estafa is failure to substantiate actual damage.
Further Reading
- Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, latest ed.
- Abad, BP 22: Law and Cases.
- Supreme Court Administrative Circulars 12‑2000, 13‑2001, and 57‑97.
Prepared by ChatGPT (OpenAI o3). This article synthesizes statutory text and jurisprudence up to 17 April 2025.