Dear Atty. Shalie,

In the last quarter of last year, I entered into a contract of lease with my lessor, for the use of a residential condominium unit, in which I had to issue post-dated checks, dated on a monthly basis and covering a period of one year. Unfortunately, I incurred heavy losses in my business and also got very sick, which left me incapable of fulfilling my personal obligations, including the payment of the rental fee to my lessor. I tried asking consideration from them, not to deposit the checks, as the account had insufficient funds. My lessor gave me only a few months, and then also deposited the checks that already fell due. They also advised me that they would use the checks to file a criminal case against me. Will I be able to use as my defense the fact that despite the lessor’s knowledge of the insufficiency of the funds in my account, they still deposited the checks?

Adrian

***

Dear Adrian,

It is well settled that the law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, and not the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks at the time of issuance, and putting them in circulation. Section 2 of B.P. 22 states: “Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee bank because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within 90 days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. The knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized by BP 22.

Atty. Shalie Obinque