Home›Bar Review›2018›Criminal Law›Question IX
Question IX
IX. Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000, payable in six (6) months and, as payment for the loan, Rashid issued a postdated check for the said amount plus the agreed interest. Rashid assured Rene that the account would have sufficient funds on maturity date. On that date, Rene presented the check to the drawee bank for payment but it was dishonored for the reason that it was drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF).
Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of dishonor of the check and demanded the latter to make good the same within five (5) days from notice. After the lapse of the five (5)-day notice, Rene redeposited the check with the drawee bank but it was again dishonored for the same reason,
i.e.,
DAIF. Rene thereafter filed two (2) separate criminal actions against Rashid: (1) Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4885,
i.e,
estafa committed by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation without sufficient funds in the bank; and (2) Violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.
(a)(a) Can he be held liable under both actions? (2.5%)
(b)(b) If the check is presented for payment after four (4) months, but before it becomes stale, can the two actions still proceed? (2.5%)
Model answer · ALAC
Answer — Legal basis — Application — Conclusion.
AI-drafted in ALAC form and AI-verified against landmark authorities — refined with every round of verification.