Dear PAO,
I received a demand letter from my creditor to pay the amount
corresponding to the postdated checks I issued, which were dishonored
because of “insufficient funds”. Before receipt of the demand letter, I
was willing to settle my obligations but my creditor and I had a
misunderstanding regarding the manner of payment of my debt. In the end,
she said that she would just see me in court as she did not agree to
any settlement anymore.
I admit to be a bit angry because of her inconsideration. Then, I
received a demand letter asking me to pay all my debts otherwise she
will file a case for estafa and threatens me of imprisonment for 20
years. I believe that the case will be dismissed because I know that no
person can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. Please clarify!
Josie
Dear Josie,
Our Constitution has declared under Section 20, Article III thereof that
“no person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of poll tax”.
Although a person who is indebted cannot be punished by imprisonment, he
may nevertheless be sued civilly for collection of sum of money,
wherein the court shall order payment of debt. However, when the act of
borrowing of money is accompanied with an act which is punishable by law
with imprisonment or penalty, the debtor may be criminally liable not
for the non-payment of debt but for the commission of the crime. As in
your case, borrowing, alone, of money will not make you criminally
liable. But your issuance of postdated checks which were later
dishonored for “insufficiency of funds” constitutes a crime of either
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) or Estafa.
BP 22, commonly referred to as “Bouncing Checks Law”, punishes any
person who makes or draws and issues any checks 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
upon its presentment. On the other hand, the maker or issuer may
likewise be liable for estafa punishable under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code if he issues a check for payment of an obligation
using false pretense or fraudulent act.
Thus, your creditor may pursue either a criminal case for violation
of B.P. 22 and/or estafa against you depending on the events surrounding
your issuance of postdated checks. The penalty of twenty (20) years for
the issuance of unfunded check is not a threat for you to pay in full
the amount of the checks. The said imprisonment is the maximum penalty
which can be imposed upon an accused in an estafa case under Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code, which states that “the penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the
penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.”
Please be reminded that the above legal opinion is solely based on
our appreciation of the problem that you have stated. The opinion may
vary when other facts are stated.
source: Manila Times Column of Atty Persida Acosta
No comments:
Post a Comment