Scam Vs BP22 – What’s The Difference?
We are pretty sure that there is a time when you become a party to a transaction, either as a payee or a payment. Of course, as a beneficiary, it is preferable to receive cash, as you are confident that your payment was delivered to you in full with no further action required on your part. Now like paying, writing a check is much more convenient, especially for substantial transactions, as you won’t have to worry about bringing cash and making sure all your expenses are accounted for and debited, down to the last penny.
It’s great if all transactions went smoothly and smoothly. However, both parties make and receive the payment in good faith. But what if you were scammed by someone you had the mistake of trusting? Or what if you wrote a check in good faith to close a deal, but at the time of issue, the account had insufficient funds and made a mental note to replenish the account as soon as you were paid. Unfortunately, you later notice that your check bounced.
The above instances have increased over the years and caused an unfortunate chain reaction that led to the filing of one or both of the following: Batas Pambasa (BP) Rape and Scam 22 or the Bad Checks Act.
Scam by writing unfunded checks
The crime of fraud is punishable under the Revised Penal Code. One can be found guilty of Scam by writing a bad check with the use of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed before or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
“Post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. (Article 315 (2) (d) of the Penal Code Revised as amended by RA 4885) “
How can a person be found guilty of Scam?
According to the RPC, the following items are required to convict a person of Scam:
1. Postponement or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation incurred at the time of issuance of the check.
2. Insufficient funds to cover the check, and
3. Damages to the beneficiary thereof.
The most important element here is the damage done. In the absence of any of the following items, a person is not responsible for Scam.
Case in point:
Andrés owns and operates a good commercial business and purchased merchandise from Bonifacio and wrote a bad check in consideration for the goods received.
In this scenario, Andrés can be held liable for Scam because he wrote a check knowing that he did not have sufficient funds to pay for the items he purchased at Bonifacio. The issuance of the bad check here was with fraudulent intent.
Bad Checks Act (BP 22)
Unlike Scam, which is based on the RPC, BP 22 is enacted by a special law. A person can be charged with a violation of BP 22 when they commit the following acts:
1. Make or draw and issue any check to apply to account or by value, knowing at the time of issuance that you do not have sufficient funds or credit in the bank drawn up for the payment of said check in full at the time of its presentation, that the check is subsequently rejected by the drafted bank due to insufficient funds or credit or would have been rejected for the same reason if the drawer, without any valid reason, had ordered the bank to suspend payment;
2. Have sufficient funds or credit in the drawee bank when it makes or writes and issues a check, will not maintain sufficient funds or will not maintain a credit to cover the total amount of the check if it is presented within a period of ninety (90) days counted from the date it appears on it, so it is disgraced by the drawee bank.
How can a person be found guilty of violating BP 22?
Violation of BP 22 can be brought against anyone when the following occurs:
1. Making, drawing and issuing of any check to request on account or value;
2. Knowledge of the issuer, drawer or issuer that at the time of issuance it does not have sufficient funds or credit in the issued bank for the payment of said check in its entirety at the time of its presentation; and
3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank issued due to insufficient funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason, the drawer would not have ordered, without just cause, the bank to suspend the payment.
The same with Scam, the presence of all these requirements is important. Otherwise, the BP 22 load will not be attached. Note that knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed when it is found that the issuer received a notification of dishonor and that within 5 days of receipt of the same, did not pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for its payment. Also, in BP 22, good faith is irrelevant. That is, the issuance of a bad check by the mother already consummates the crime.
Using the same example above, Andrés can also be charged for Violation of BP 22, in addition to Scam, because the BP 22 cases also cover the issuance of bad checks for the amount received.
Where does the disparity lie?
It is Scam when, among others, you write a bad check with fraudulent intent in consideration of something of value you received. In this case, the intention is material and good faith can be used as a defense.
It is a case of Violation of BP 22 when you write a bad check, whether for an obligation you incurred before the check was issued or not. Simply put, you are responsible for BP 22 whether you write a check for a present or past obligation.