Practice question
All statutory elements of a BP22 charge are proved, but the accused insists the court must additionally find a purpose to cheat because the money was borrowed honestly. No separate statutory defense is shown. How should the court distinguish the concepts?
- Honest borrowing immunizes every later check
- Honesty of the original borrowing does not itself negate later proved prohibited issuance and statutory knowledge
- A regulatory offense always requires proof of every element of estafa
- Only the original loan motive matters
- A civil loan makes criminal statutes inapplicable
Legal references
- BP 22, Sections 1-2, express knowledge and issuance elements: https://lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1979/bp_22_1979.html
- People v. Bayona, GR 42288, February 16, 1935, general intent distinction only: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1935/feb1935/gr_42288_1935.html
- Ladonga v. People, GR 141066, February 17, 2005, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_141066_2005.html
- Carlos v. People, GR 277047, April 15, 2026, en banc main decision, BP22 classification and statutory elements: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/18/70562
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.