2013 (Criminal Law) Bar Exam Questions: Essay Question 10

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or jump to Criminal Law Essay Question 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11; Criminal Law Multiple Choice Question 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25; See also 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him hehad insufficient funds and requested that the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law).

Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (7%)


    1. Agree, proper yung charge ng BP 22. Alam naman ng karamihan na BP 22 siya, question is, bakit ganyan ang phrasing ng tanong? Ano ang hinahanap ng examiner o ni Justice Brion? Naglagay tuloy ako ng Pro Reo diyan, magkapatid sila, may fair warning naman na wag muna i-cash at BP 22 cases clogging the dockets of the court therefore i-settle na lang alternatively. 🙁

  1. tama ka anon na mere issuance of unfunded check is the gravamen of the law. be that as it may, the law provides leeway that Frank could have prevented the case if after receiving the Eric’s written notice of dishonor and demand for payment, he paid him the value of the check within 5 banking days. Accordingly, the charge against Frank is correct.

    on the other hand, since the facts were silent as to whether Eric gave the written notice of dishonor and demand for payment and/or the period 5 banking days within which Frank must pay; pwede ring isagot na ‘the charge is not correct’ against Frank because the one and/or two of the requisites for criminal liability to attach under the BP22 was/were not satisfied.:

    1. no written notice of dishonor and demand for payment were made by Eric; and/or

    2. no 5 banking days within which to make good the value of the check was given to Frank.

    1. I agree with your supplement Benj which I inadvertently omitted in my answer due to time pressure, marami ako mga answers na medyo bitin kasi nga halos ubos ang oras ko in each subject, sagad to the last seconds, hehe except commercial law lang siguro.

      1. Tingin ko pwede din because the check was issued for an obligation as defined under RPC but for me kung gagamitin ko ang estafa he could not be guilty thereof since wala namang intent to defraud, at least kung BP 22 intent to defraud is not relevant since mala prohibita ito

      2. If we argue along BP 22, it is being responsive to the question. If estafa, maybe correct as to its filing while the outcome of the case is another concern. The questions hinges whether the filing for violation of BP 22 is proper. In answering this type of question, it is safe to argue whether or not the charge for BP 22 is correct.

  2. The charge of BP 22 is not proper for me because there is no showing that the 5 days notice of dishonor was complied with. The 5 days notice of dishonor is important so that within the said period Frank can make arrangement with the bank or to make good his check. Without complying with the 5 days notice of dishonor you cannot say yet that frank indeed issued a worthless check.

  3. Sir,
    Legal advise lang po !
    May nag issue sa akin ng cheque amount P120,000-. Nag bounced po due to insufficient fund.
    At the moment, nasa Saudi po ako OFW. Paano ko po ito hahabulin ? May time limit po ba para ako ay magfile ng criminal case kung di nila ako bayaran ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *