Which of the following is not a valid defense in BP 22 as compared to estafa?

• A. Lack of knowledge
• B. Good faith
• C. Lack of notice of dishonor
• D. Criminal intent to defraud

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that BP 22 liability hinges on knowledge about funds, not on fraudulent intent. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a person is liable for issuing a check when they know, at the time of issue, that there are insufficient funds or credit to cover the amount. Because of this, defenses focus on negating that knowledge or the related requirements (such as proper notice of dishonor). Good faith, lack of knowledge, and even lack of notice of dishonor can undermine the elements needed for liability, since they show the issuer may not have known the check would not be paid or may not have received the required notice.

Criminal intent to defraud, however, is not a valid defense under BP 22 because the offense does not require proof of fraudulent intent to convict. The liability can attach even without proof of a fraud scheme. In estafa, by contrast, fraud and a deceptive purpose are essential elements, so lack of fraudulent intent can be a defense there. Therefore, the statement that criminal intent to defraud is a valid defense in BP 22 is not correct; it’s not a defense, making it the correct choice.