So in this case, what could possibly be a strong defense in order to avoid a conviction when let's say a check was issued just to pay any kind obligation?
I read the "Law on Bouncing Check" written by no less than the author of the R.A 4885 amendatory law to Art. 315 2(d) - Estafa by bouncing check, Senator Ambrosio Padilla and learned that, debt is no longer a defense, neither is the issuer informing or not the payee that he doesn't have funds to cover the check, or he did not know that his funds were insufficient.
Do you know any sample cases where the accused was acquitted despite failure to fund the check within 3 days notice?
Is it safe to assume that victims of bouncing checks should be safer now since in estafa by bouncing check, bad faith or deceit is easy to prove as long as 3 days notice is properly given? And damage of course is assumed since there's a presumption that a check is issued for a valuable consideration. So if this is the case then what's the point of having the BP 22??
Last edited by mangjayson on Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:21 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Additional questions)