This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-10-01 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check.[15] Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises.[16] | |||||
|
2003-09-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There is, however, no basis for petitioner to conclude that she was convicted for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes any person who shall defraud another by postdating or issuing a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of check. The elements of this form of estafa are: (1) postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.[8] | |||||