Scribd
Upload
138 views2 pages

Statement of Facts

Patrick borrowed P100,000 from Raymond and issued a check as evidence of the loan. When Raymond tried to deposit the check, it was returned unpaid because Patrick had closed the account. Raymond filed a criminal complaint against Patrick for violating Section 1 of Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, which prohibits issuing checks without sufficient funds. As Raymond's legal adviser, the author argues that Patrick can be held liable under this law because he issued a check from a closed account, which constitutes an unfunded check under the statute. Proper demand must be made first to comply with due process.

Uploaded by

Rome Dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
138 views2 pages

Statement of Facts

Patrick borrowed P100,000 from Raymond and issued a check as evidence of the loan. When Raymond tried to deposit the check, it was returned unpaid because Patrick had closed the account. Raymond filed a criminal complaint against Patrick for violating Section 1 of Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, which prohibits issuing checks without sufficient funds. As Raymond's legal adviser, the author argues that Patrick can be held liable under this law because he issued a check from a closed account, which constitutes an unfunded check under the statute. Proper demand must be made first to comply with due process.

Uploaded by

Rome Dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 1, Patrick went to Raymonds house and asked


if he could lend him P100,000.00 payable on July 1,2013. As
evidence of this loan, Raymond required Patrick to issue a
check to which Patrick complied. Check No.123456 was
issued on July 12, 2013.
Raymond demanded payment but Patrick refused.
Raymond deposited on his account but after three (3) days
check was returned to himACCOUNT CLOSED.
On

July15,

2013,

Raymond

initiated

criminal

complaint against Patrick before the Office of the Provincial


Prosecutor of Dagupan.

ISSUE
Whether or not Patrick shall be held liable in violation of Sec.
1 of BP. Blg. 22 for his non-payment of obligation.

ARGUMENTS
1.) The law provides that BP 22 may be violated in the
following manner:
By making or drawing and issuing any check to apply
on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its

presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the


drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would
have been dishonored for the reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
In the case at bar, Patrick issued check number 123456
on July 1 2013. Raymond, upon depositing the check issued
by Patrick in his account, was dishonored by the Bank by
reason of the account being closed.
The act done by Patrick is clearly in violation of what
the law provides by issuing a check that does not have
sufficient funds with the drawee bank. Hence he may be
properly convicted of BP 22 as provided for by law.
Moreover, it is a well-established rule that what is being
penalized under BP 22 is not the non-payment of obligation
but the issuance of the unfunded account. Thus, BP 22 is
treated by our jurisprudence as a malum prohibitum. Which
means that the issuance of check is not illegal per se, but
because there is a special law that defines and penalizes
such as an offense; the act becomes unlawful.
As the legal adviser of Raymond, I would advice him
that Patrick may be held liable for violating Batasang
Pambansa Blg. 22 and that proper notice of demand must
first be complied with so as to not violate procedural due
process of the law.

You might also like