Monday, June 29, 2009

RA 8484 Part II

Please post your query on RA 8484 HERE.


RA 8484 Simplified

Note : for your query, please e-mail us instead

What RA 8484 is talking about :

Section 3. Definition of Terms.

(b) Counterfeit Access Device
(c) Unauthorized Access Device
(d) Access Device Fraudulently Applied for
(g) Device Making or Altering Equipment

Why, it is actually talking about faking cards! After faking a card, one uses it.


Section 9. Prohibited Acts.
(j)obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device, with intent to defraud or with intent to gain and fleeing thereafter;

What are the indications that you got that motive?

Section 14. Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence of Intent to Defraud:

A cardholder who abandons or surreptitiously leaves the place of employment, business or residence stated in his application or credit card:

a.without informing the credit card company of the place where he could actually be found
b.if at the time of such abandonment or surreptitious leaving, the outstanding and unpaid balance is
-past due for at least ninety (90) days and
-is more than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)

shall be prima facie presumed to have used his credit card with intent to defraud.

What is abandonment or surreptitious leaving? Basa.

Abandonment is that to which a person has voluntarily relinquished possession without vesting ownership to any other person. Umalis ng walang paalam.

leaving surrept.. what? kinda tongue twister here. basa.

adj. - Conducted with or marked by hidden aims or methods; Marked by quiet and caution and secrecy.

Why would he do that?
Because in the first place, he faked his cards!

Now, go tell that to Mr. Collector.

Note : due to volume of posts here, please e-mail your query instead

Friday, June 26, 2009

We Are Only Human

For quite a time, I have been writing about credit card problems.
For quite a time too, I tried to suggest some diskartes, or clarifying
some common fears.

Maybe, its about time that I blog something else? not really far from
blogging about people's paranoia.

Simply, its about how people expects me to be.somebody says it. "perfect".

of course not!

I am not a demi-god. I am only a human being. I also made some
wrong decisions in my life. I also make mistakes - just like you
and our other friends.

I am no super hero. I am just an ordinary guy trying to do extra-ordinary things.

So, dont expect me to be "perfect".
My apologies if I cant be one.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Bouncing Checks Not Babies

My Guide to BP 22 Part II

Not every check that bounced should be criminally prosecuted.
When someone issues a check, in exchange for something of value,
so that the victim will part with his goods, knowingly that it will
bounce,is guilty of issuing a worthless piece of paper.
( with fraudulent intent).

It should not be a criminal case, however, if there is a pre-existing
debt and you pay it with a bad check. The victim did not part with
his goods just because of that check.You are just guilty of not
paying your debt!

This is the essence of a “Post-dated check”. It is assumed that it is
not good at the time the consideration is received. Therefore, this
merely represents a loan, with the check as a collateral for that loan.

It would only be a criminal act if there is fraudulent intention.
..which is actually hard to prove.

Still worried? just attend when invited.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

My Guide To BP 22

Long ago, in a far away place called the Philippines, the Supreme Court noticed that they are being made collectors of lenders thereby clogging the courts. To remedy, they decided to implement the following rules and procedures:

1.Umutang ka ,covered by PDCs at hinde makabayaq?

Filing for violation of BP 22 is now deemed to necessarily include the
corresponding civil action. Therefore, complainant must pay filing fees.

Failure to pay the same within 10 days, the case shall be archived;
After the lapse of two months the records of the case shall be disposed of.

2.Criminal actions for violation of BP 22 were also included among
those offenses where the civil aspect may be the subject of

Thus :

IV Rules on Summary Procedures

Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of
the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. Release
of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a
responsible citizen acceptable to the court.

VI. Bail Bond Requirement

P 2,000.00 for the first P40,000.00 face value of the check;
plus P1,000.00 for every P10,000.00 in excess of P40,000.00 ;
but bail shall not exceed P30,000.00

3.Issued Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, later on clarified by
A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC dated February 13, 2001 that :

the intention of this circular was not to remove imprisonment as
an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference
in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22:

(a) imprisonment only;
(b) fine only; OR
(c) both.

V Penalty under BP 22:

30 days to 1 year imprisonment and/or
fine of not more than double the amount of the check
but not exceeding P200,000.00

However, judges now rarely impose imprisonment as a penalty.

In the event of imprisonment:

VII Presidential Decree No. 968 dated July 24, 1976

Section 4. Grant of Probation.
The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant,
suspend the execution of said sentence and place the
defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms
and conditions as it may deem best.


In G.R. No. 138669 dated June 6, 2002 the Supreme Court has this to say:

Nevertheless, while we recognize the noble objective of B.P.22, we
deem it proper to consider the underlying circumstances of the
case such that if the situation calls for the imposition of the
alternative penalty of fine rather than imprisonment, the courts
should not hesitate to do so.

On the 1999 decision of the Supreme Court in King vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 131540), PANGANIBAN, J. wrote:

Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the prosecution must prove not only that the:
1.accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored.
2.It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and
3.that he or she failed, within five banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment.
Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper.

“True, complainant sent petitioner a registered mail,.. but the records show that petitioner did not receive it . .”

However, in the 2005 case of Yulo vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. 142762),the Supreme Court seemed to have disregarded this “notice” requirement, perhaps, since it also considered the underlying circumstances of this particular case.

Thus, Jaromay Laurente Pamaos Law Office opined that:
“ In other words, at this stage, both sides could logically argue either way.”

Tuesday, June 9, 2009


For easier reading, or simply discovering modes of diskartes or
to have quicker responses about what's on your mind
there are three blog chapters about Queries and Comments
(Feb - March/08)

Friday, June 5, 2009

It's Sad To Belong

It’s Sad To Belong

Met you on a springtime day
I was mindin’ my life
And you were mindin' mine too.
Baby when you came my way,
I had a strange sensation
And, darlin' that's when I knew...

That it's sad to belong to one like you
When you shouldn't come along,
Yes, it's sad to belong to one like you
When you shouldn't come along.

Oh, I wake up in the night
And I reach beside me
Hopin' you wont be there
But instead I find something
Who’d believed that I swiped 'nother one of those bills?
( repeat refrain)