Estafa Vs B.P.22 - What Is the Difference?
We're almost certain there's a point in time that you progressed toward becoming gathering to an exchange, either as payee or payer. Obviously as payee, getting money is greatly favored as you are certain that your installment was given to you in full sans any further activity required from your end. Presently as payer, issuing a check is a great deal more advantageous, particularly for considerable exchanges, as you would not need to stress over bringing money and ensuring that every one of your costs are accounted and charged for, up to the last centavo.
It's incredible if all exchanges went easily with no hitch. Be that as it may, with the two gatherings making and accepting installment all in accordance with some basic honesty. Be that as it may, imagine a scenario where you were conned by somebody you had the slip-up of trusting. For sure on the off chance that you issued a check as a show of good confidence to settle out on a negotiations yet at the season of issuance, the record has deficient assets and you gave careful consideration to recharge the record when you got paid. Oh, you at that point see that your check ricocheted.
The above examples had flooded throughout the years and has caused a shocking chain response which incited the documenting of either or both the accompanying cases: Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambasa (BP) 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.
Estafa Through Issuance of Unfunded Checks
The wrongdoing of Estafa is rebuffed under the Revised Penal Code. One can be held blameworthy for Estafa by methods for issuing a skipping check with the utilization of misrepresentations or deceitful acts executed before or at the same time with the commission of the extortion:
"By postdating a check, or issuing a check in installment of a commitment when the guilty party had no assets in the bank, or his assets stored in that were not adequate to cover the measure of the check. (Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as changed by R.A. 4885)"
By what means can a man be held blameworthy for Estafa?
Under the RPC, the accompanying components are important to hold a man liable of Estafa:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check in installment of a commitment contracted at the time the check was issued
2. Deficiency of assets to cover the check, and
3. Harm to the payee thereof.
The most critical component here is the harm caused. Missing any of the accompanying components, a man can't be held obligated for Estafa.
A valid example:
Andres claims and works an exchanging decent business and purchased stock from Bonifacio and issued an unfunded check in light of the merchandise got.
In this situation, Andres can be held at risk for Estafa on the grounds that he issued a check knowing it to be without adequate assets to pay the things he purchased from Bonifacio. The issuance of the skiped check here was with false expectation.
Skipping Checks Law (BP 22)
Dissimilar to Estafa which has its premise under the RPC, BP 22 is instituted through an exceptional law. A man can be charged for infringement of BP 22 when he submits the accompanying demonstrations:
1. Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on record or for esteem, knowing at the season of issue that he doesn't have adequate assets in or credit with the drawee bank for the installment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is in this way shamed by the drawee bank for inadequacy of assets or credit or would have been disrespected for a similar reason had not the cabinet, with no legitimate reason, requested the bank to stop installment;
2. Having adequate assets in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, will neglect to keep adequate assets or to keep up an a good representative for cover everything of the check whenever introduced inside a time of ninety (90) days from the date showing up consequently, for which reason it is shamed by the drawee bank.
In what manner can a man be held blameworthy for Violation of BP 22?
Infringement of BP 22 can be documented against any individual when coming up next are available:
1. Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for record or for esteem;
2. Information of the creator, cabinet, or guarantor that at the season of issue he doesn't have adequate assets in or credit with the drawee bank for the installment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
3. Ensuing disrespect of the check by the drawee bank for inadequacy of assets or credit or shame for a similar reason had not the cabinet, with no legitimate reason, requested the bank to stop installment.
Same with Estafa, the nearness of every one of these prerequisites is vital. Something else, the charge of BP 22 won't connect. Note that learning of inadequacy of assets is assumed when it is demonstrated that the backer got a notice of shame and that inside 5 days from receipt thereof, he neglected to pay the measure of the check or make plan for its installment. Furthermore, in BP 22, great confidence is unimportant. Which means, the insignificant issuance of an unfunded check as of now fulfills the wrongdoing.
Utilizing a similar precedent above, Andres can likewise be charged for Violation of BP 22, other than Estafa, on the grounds that BP 22 cases additionally cover issuances of skipping checks for esteem got.
Where does the uniqueness lie?
It is Estafa when, among others, you issue an unfunded check with deceitful goal in light of something of significant worth you got. Here expectation is material and great confidence might be utilized as a resistance.
It is a case for Violation of BP 22 when you issue an unfunded check regardless of whether it is for a commitment you contracted before the issuance of the check or not. Basically, you are subject for BP 22 whether you issue a check for a present or a past commitment.