Practice question
A cardholder surreptitiously leaves the address stated in her credit-card application without notifying the company where she can be found. Her PHP 150,000 balance has been past due for ninety-five days. The prosecutor invokes the specific abandonment presumption using the old PHP 10,000 threshold, without other fraud evidence. Which answer applies the amended threshold correctly?
- The old threshold remains controlling.
- The specific presumption's balance condition is not met because RA 11449 requires more than PHP 200,000.
- Every unpaid balance automatically proves fraud.
- Exactly ninety-five days automatically replaces the balance condition.
- No credit-card conduct can ever be criminal.
Legal references
- RA 8484, Sections 3, 9–14 and 17, retained provisions read with RA 11449 amendments: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1998/ra_8484_1998.html
- RA 11449, Sections 2–5 amending access-device definitions, prohibited acts, penalties and presumption threshold: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11449_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.