To: Jo Paul Gatapia

From: Jeff Ilagan

Subject: Defenses on Estafa via issuance of a post dated check

Under Article 315 (2)(d), Revised Penal Code
By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from
the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency
of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

Summary of Defenses Available:
Good Faith (absence of bad faith)
Post-dated dates are false or inexistent
Post-dating/Issuance must not be an inducement to surrender money or property
Absence of deceipt and damage
Post-dating not the efficient cause of defraudation


1. People vs. Dinglasan, 389 SCRA 71, GR 133645, September 17, 2002
A. Two charges of estafa via issuance of a post dated check was dismissed as the alleged dates
of the corresponding transactions are false or inexistent.
B. Essential Elements for Estafa under paragraph 315 par. 2(d)
(1) postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was
issued;
(2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check;
(3) knowledge on the part of the offender of such circumstances; and
(4) damage to the complainant.

The first element of the offense requires that the dishonored check must have been
postdated or issued at the time the obligation was contracted. In other words, the date the
obligation was entered into, being the very date the check was issued or postdated, is a material
ingredient of the offense. Hence, not only must said date be specifically and particularly alleged in
the information, it must be proved as alleged

2. People vs. Singson G.R. No. 75920, 215 SCRA 534 (1992).
Grounds for acquittal. (Negation of bad faith)
(a) her prompt action in offering to replace the dishonored checks;
(b) partial payments made by her; and
(c) the fact that complainant knew that she had insufficient funds at the time she issued the
checks.
3. Gonzaludo vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150910, 06 February 2006
When deceit shouldve been committed to constitute estafa:
For deceit to constitute an element of Estafa, such should be done prior to or simultaneously with
the damage and must be the cause thereof.

4. People vs. Tongko G.R. No. 123567. June 5, 1998
Post dating of the checks simple meant that the checks would be funded on such date but
does not mean the the checks were issued on such dates thus negating the element that the check
was issued on in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued

5. Nagrampa vs. People, G.R. No. 146211. August 6, 2002
The act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient
cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of
fraud. The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of
the issuance of the check, or the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted
with his money or property had there been no check issued to him. Stated otherwise, the check
should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or
property, and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation
The check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party
deceived of his money or property and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

6. Candido dela Cruz, CA 37 O.G. 1958
As fraud is an element of Estafa, its absence is fatal to the prosecution of the case. When
the allegation of deceit has not been proven, there is no Estafa.

7. People vs. Guilon, G. R. No. 141183. January 18, 2001.
Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a check. This may be manifested
by the accuseds offering to make arrangements with his creditor as to the manner of payment or,
as in the present case, averring that his placing his signature on the questioned checks was purely a
result of his gullibility and inadvertence, with the unfortunate result that he himself became a
victim of the trickery and manipulations of accused-at-large

8. People vs. Ojeda G.R. Nos. 104238-58. June 3, 2004
DECEIT AND DAMAGE AS ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA
Under paragraph 2 (d) of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4885, the elements of estafa
are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is
issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit
and damage are essential elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to
warrant conviction. 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 aprima facie presumption of
deceit arises.
The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. The prima facie presumption of deceit was
successfully rebutted by appellants evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a
check. Good faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtors offer to arrange a payment
scheme with his creditor. In this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for payment; as
complainant herself categorically stated, the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of the
dishonored checks. The element of damage is negated.
It must be noted that our Revised Penal Code was enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied
by evil intent denominated as crimesmala in se. The principal consideration is the existence of
malicious intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent which together make
up the criminal mind behind the criminal act. Thus, to constitute a crime, the act must,
generally and in most cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens
sit rea. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is
innocent.