Distinction between Estafa and B.P.

22

1. In Estafa, issuance of the check must not be in payment or a pre-existing obligation, but in B.P. 22, it
may be for a pre-existing obligation, or to guarantee an obligation.

2. In Estafa, the accused must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the
check he issues and delivers, because false pretenses or deceit and damage, or at least an intent to
cause damage, are essential and the false pretense must be prior to or simultaneous with the damage
caused; while in B.P. 22, it is not necessary that the accused receive anything, it is enough that he
issues the check knowing he had no sufficient funds to cover it.

3. In Estafa, the drawer or the person who issued the check is given 3 days after receiving notice of the
dishonor of the check to pay or make arrangements for payment (Article 315, No. 2 [d], Revised Penal
Code, as amended by R.A. 4885.); while under B.P. 22, the drawer is given 5 days after notice of
dishonor to make arrangements for payment. (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 2). In either case, if the
drawer pays within the periods provided, then he cannot be held liable for either crime.

4. In Estafa, it is not necessary that the drawer should know at the time that he issued the check that the
funds deposited in the bank were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check, and there is no
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds; while under B.P. 22, the maker or the drawer and
issuer of the check should know at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the bank for the payment of the check in full, and a presumption of knowledge arises with the mere
issuance of a check which was dishonored for insufficiency of funds when presented within 90 days from
the time it was issued. It is thus necessary that notice of dishonor be sent to the person accused of
violation of B.P. 22, as the absence of proof that the drawer received any notice of dishonor of the
checks he issued, and giving him five days within which to make arrangements for payment, does not
give rise to the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, and thus, the accused cannot be held
liable under the law. (Caras v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129900, October 2, 2001; Danao v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 122353, June 6, 2001)

5. In Estafa, there must be no funds or there is an insufficiency of funds at the time of the issuance of
the bum check; while in B.P. 22, it may be that there were sufficient funds with the bank at the time of
issuance of the check, but when the check was presented with the bank within 90 days from its issuance,
there were no longer any funds or the funds were insufficient to cover the amount of the check.

6. In Estafa, an indorser who acted with deceit knowing that the check is worthless will be criminally
liable; while under B.P. 22, the indorser is not liable as the law punishes the person who makes or
draws and issues any check, and makes no mention of indorsers.

| Page 1 of 1