Distinction between B.P. Blg.22 vs Estafa in Revised Penal Code

In B.P. Blg 22:

1. Even though the check was issued in payment of pre-existing obligation, liability is incurred.
2. Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability.
Crime against public interest since the act is penalized because of the disastrous effect to the stability of the banking system and prejudicial to the country.
4. Only the drawer is liable and if the drawer was a juridical entity, its officer who signed the check shall be liable. The indorser is not liable.
5. Drawer is given five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor to make good the cah value thereof in order to avoid criminal liability.
6. This is malum prohibitum.

In Estafa:
1. The check should be issued concurrently and reciprocally in payment of the exchange consideration. The check should not be for a pre-existing obligation.
2. Damage to the offended and deceit of offender are essential elements.
3. Crime against property.
4. Not only the drawer but even indorsee may incur liability if he were aware at the time of the indorsement of the insufficiency of funds.
5. Drawer is given only three (3) days after notice of dishonor to make good the cash value to avoid liabilty.
6. This is malum in se.




(Civil Code of the Philippines annotated: Y Edgardo L. Paras)