Batas Pambansa 22
LA check which has not been presented within reasonable time from the date of issuance- a. Bouncing check b. Stale check c. Overdue check d. Worthless check 2. x issued a check in favor of Y. Later. after 2 months, Y presented the check for payment. The bmk did not pay for the reason that X ordered a \"stop payment order". it ordered the "stop payment" because of violation by Y of conditions in their contract. In this case a. as shall be tiable for violation of BP 22 if he does not pay 'r' in 5 days after notice from Y of non-payment by the bank. b. as shall be liable for estafa if he does not pay Y 'n 3 days after notice from Y of non-payment by the bank. c. The bank should notify X of its non-payment. d. None of the above is. Statement 1 : If an issuer of a worthless check was not notified of the dishonor of his check, he may not be liable of violation of BP 22. Statement 2: Violation of BP 22 and estate are the same because both involve the issuance of a worthless check. a. Bath statements are true to. Both statements are false c. Only statement I is true a. Only statement 2is true 4.What is the role of a written notice of dishonor in BP 22 cases? a. It is an element at the crime b. It is a means to establish the elements at the crime c. It is a means to establish knowledge by the issuer of the insufficiency of tu nds d. Any of the above i5.5tatement 1: Fraud is an important element in BP 22 cases. Statement 2: Fraud is an important element in estate cases. a. Bath statements are true 1:). Both statements are false c. Only statement 1 is true d. Only statement 2 is true :s.x ordered supplies from Z. Z delivered the supplies to X. X asked 2 it he world accept a check in payment and I agreed. x issued a check in payment and knowing that at the time of issuance. the check has no sufficient funds. What is the legal implication of the foregoing scenario? a. x may be held liable for violation of SP 22. b. X shall be held liable for estafa committed by issuing a worthless check with knowledge of insufficiency of funds. (2. Either a or b (1. Both a and b 7.x ordered supplies from 2. z delivered the suppties to x. it asked Z it he would accept a check in payment and I agreed. x issued a check in payment and knowing that at the time at issuance. the check has no sufficieM funds. a. X shall be held liable for estate because at the time of issuance of the check. he had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. b. x shall be held liable for estafa because a false pretense or fraudulent act has been committed by him prior to the issuance of the worthless check. c. x shall be held liable for estafa because a false pretense or fraudulent act has been committed by him simultaneous to the issuance of the worthless check. d. X shall not be held liable for estofa because a false pretense or fraudulent act has not been committed by him prior or simultaneous to the issuance of the worthless check. 8.Violation of BP 22 is malum prohibitum because- a. The offender committed and act which is prohibited by the law. b. The act of issuing a check without sufficient funds is in itself a crime. c. The act of issuing a worthless check is punishable under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. cl. All of the above 9.5tatement l: Prosecution for violation of BP 22 is a bar to the prosecution of the same accused for estate. Statement 2: A violation of BP 22 is not really a wrong in itself or involves wrongful or immoral conduct. a. Bath statements are true b. Both statements are false a. Only statement 1 is true :1. Only statement 2 is true a. Issuance of a worthless check with or without knowledge by the issuer b. Issuance of a worthless check with knowledge by the issuer of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance. c. Issuance of worthless check with knowledge by the issuer of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance and failure by him to keep sufficient funds to cover the check if presented within 90 days from issuance. d. Any of the above
