Briefly and in concise manner John obtained a loan from Myrna in the amount of P60,000.00, payable in six (6) months and, as payment for the loan, John issued a postdated check for the said amount plus the agreed interest. John assured Myrna that the account would have sufficient funds on maturity date. On that date, Myrna presented the check to the drawee bank for payment but it was dishonored for the reason that it was drawn against insufficient funds. Myrna sent John a timely notice of dishonor of the check and demanded the latter to make good the same within five (5) days from notice. After the lapse of the five (5)-day notice, Myrna redeposited the check with the drawee bank but it was again dishonored for the same reason. Myrna thereafter filed two (2) separate criminal actions against John: (1) Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, i.e, estafa committed by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation without sufficient funds in the bank; and (2) Violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. Can John be held liable under both actions? Explain