1

Lim vs. People 11

Malum prohibitum nature Bautista v. CA
Presumption jure tantum 13
Modified penalty for good faith Tan vs Mendez
Compensation whether to preclude BP22
2 NO
Nierras v. Dacuycuy Offset of the settlement
Estafa vs. BP22 as to double jeopardy
o No double jeopardy
ARTICLE 315 (2d) Estafa B.P. 22 Precedential guidelines:
Mere issuance has the 1. PD1689 covers commercial banks
presumption of 2. Within the ambit of the decree done
knowledge through the association, which operates
Based on an obligation Even if pre-existing fund collected or solicited from the general
obligation public (the entity)
Penalties under RPC Penalties are diff 3. Syndicate 5 or more
Crime against property Crime against public 4. Less than five perpetrators 2nd paragraph
interest (banking system) 5. DOES NOT APPLY when
Mala in se Mala prohibita a. The entity is the victim
b. The offenders are not owners or
employees who used the
association
3
Wong vs. CA
The checks served as guaranty and he
should not have deposited such as the
obligation was already paid
The presumption of knowledge (90 days)
in the case its 157 days
o 90 days not an element of crime
Also the issue as to guaranty and the
obligation did not really happen
4
People/SMC vs. Grospe
Jurisdiction as to venue BP 22 is a
transitory crime
Bulacan vs Pampanga

5
Llamado vs CA
Merely signing blank checks
Novation

6
Que vs People
Venue

7
Cabrera v People
used another checking account
it was actually Co that benefited
No notice of dishonor to the issuer
o Acquitted
10
People vs. NItafan
Memorandum Check is it covered by BP22?
YES