Isn't Estafa through bouncing check very easy to prove???

Based on what i've read so far, the general point of view is that estafa is hard to prove because deceit an essential element and it is really hard to prove. However, when an unfunded check is used in payment of an obligation, there arises a prima facie evidence of false pretense when the drawer fails to fund the check despite 3 days notice.

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??

in estafa by bouncing check, the check has to be issued simultaneous or before the transaction. the check has to be the reason why the offended party let go of his property.

normal reason for acquittal is failure to prove that there was written notice.

attyLLL wrote:in estafa by bouncing check, the check has to be issued simultaneous or before the transaction. the check has to be the reason why the offended party let go of his property.

normal reason for acquittal is failure to prove that there was written notice.

Attylll, that is not what senator Padilla explained in his article I mentioned above. He explained that any kind of obligation is covered by that provision whether it is pre existing or the obligation is contracted simultaneously with the issuance of the check. He said it is not the contracting of obligation that is being punished but the mere issuance of the check. However there is one CA justice, LB Reyes who keeps contradicting his explanation or his original intent in sponsoring the amendment RA 4885. And some judges base their decision from LB Reyes' book which is erroneous.

sorry, but i agree with Justice reyes on this one.

the author's intent is not controlling in the interpretation of a law