X issued check in favor of Y. X knew at the time of issue that the check has no sufficient fund in the drawee bank. Upon presentment by Y, the bank dishonored the check for insufficiency of fund. Y filed charges against X for violation of BP Blg. 22. X, however, subsequently issued another check to Y in payment of the amount covered by the original check which action was not made known to Y. Can X still be charged with violation of BP Blg. 22 A. No, because no person shall be imprisoned for debt. B. No, because there is no more unpaid debt. C. Yes, because what is punished is the act of issuing a worthless check. D. No, because the subsequent check cleared the offense.
X issued check in favor of Y. X knew at the time of issue that the check has no sufficient fund in the drawee bank. Upon presentment by Y, the bank dishonored the check for insufficiency of fund. Y filed charges against X for violation of BP Blg. 22. X, however, subsequently issued another check to Y in payment of the amount covered by the original check which action was not made known to Y. Can X still be charged with violation of BP Blg. 22
A. No, because no person shall be imprisoned for debt.
B. No, because there is no more unpaid debt.
C. Yes, because what is punished is the act of issuing a worthless check.
D. No, because the subsequent check cleared the offense.
B opened a peso savings account with BPI by depositing a check issued to her for her retirement benefits amounting to P200,000. Subsequently, BPI became insolvent and when B sought to withdraw money from her account, she was unable to do so. B then filed a criminal case against D, the bank president, and the other bank officers, charging them with violation of the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law. Will the case prosper?
A. Yes, because BPI has a sworn duty to return the money upon demand.
B. No, because BPI owns the money under a creditor-debtor relationship.
C. No, because the elements for violation of the special law are not present.
D. Yes, because the check was deposited with BPI for value.
Accused Gancho was convicted under BP 22 for having issued several checks which were dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date because the accused closed her account after the issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she could not be convicted under BP 22 by reason of the closing of her account because said law applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank. While she admits that she may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code, she cannot, however, be found guilty of having violated BP 22. Is her contention correct?
A. No, Gancho’s contention is incorrect because each act of drawing and issuing of a bounced check constitutes a violation of BP 22. Furthermore, the institution of a case of BP22 does not militate against the institution of a charge for Estafa is all the elements for such crime has been established by the prosecution.
B. Yes, Gancho’s contention is correct.
C. Yes, but Gancho should be guilty for both BP 22 and estafa.
D. No, Gancho should be guilty of mala in se.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
