SPL
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING
AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person
who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on
account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by
the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
would have been dishonored for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to
stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not
less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a
fine of not less than but not more than double the amount
of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who,
having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to
keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety
(90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which
reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or
entity, the person or persons who actually signed the
check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this
Act.
Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. -
The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of
which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within
ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima
facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder
thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements
for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has
not been paid by the drawee.
Section 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall be
the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to pay
the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause
to be written, printed, or stamped in plain language
thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's
dishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided, That where
there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee
bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the
notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions under this
Act, the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and
dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay
stamped or written thereon or attached thereto, with the
reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie evidence
of the making or issuance of said check, and the due
presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor
thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored for the
reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on
such dishonored check.
Not with standing receipt of an order to stop payment, the
drawee shall state in the notice that there were no
sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment
in full of such check, if such be the fact.
Section 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit" as used
herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or
understanding with the bank for the payment of such
check.
Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. -
Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to
any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised
Penal Code.
Section 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision
of this Act be declared unconstitutional, the remaining
provisions shall continue to be in force.
Section 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen
days after publication in the Official Gazette.1âwphi1
Estafa Vs B.P.22 - What Is the Difference?
We're pretty sure there's a point in time that you became
party to a transaction, either as payee or payer. Of course
as payee, receiving cash is much preferred as you are
sure that your payment was given to you in full sans any
further action needed from your end. Now as payer,
issuing a check is so much more convenient, especially for
substantial transactions, as you would not have to worry
about bringing cash and making sure that all your
expenses are accounted and debited for, up to the last
centavo.
It's great if all transactions went smoothly without any hitch.
However, with both parties making and receiving payment
all in good faith. But what if you were conned by someone
you had the mistake of trusting? Or what if you issued a
check as a show of good faith to close out on a deal but at
the time of issuance, the account has insufficient funds
and you made a mental note to replenish the account as
soon as you got paid. Alas, you then notice that your
check bounced.
The above instances had surged over the years and has
caused an unfortunate chain reaction which prompted the
1
 SPL
filing of either or both the following cases: Estafa and
Violation of Batas Pambasa (BP) 22 or the Bouncing
Checks Law.
ESTAFA THROUGH ISSUANCE OF UNFUNDED
CHECKS
The crime of Estafa is punished under the Revised Penal
Code. One can be held guilty for Estafa by means of
issuing a bouncing check with the use of false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:
"By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of
an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank,
or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover
the amount of the check. (Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by R.A. 4885)"
How can a person be held guilty for Estafa?
Under the RPC, the following elements are necessary to
hold a person guilty of Estafa:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued
2. Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
3. Damage to the payee thereof.
The most important element here is the damage caused.
Absent any of the following elements, a person cannot be
held liable for Estafa.
Case in point:
Andres owns and operates a trading good business and
bought merchandise from Bonifacio and issued an
unfunded check in consideration of the goods received.
In this scenario, Andres can be held liable for Estafa
because he issued a check knowing it to be without
sufficient funds to pay the items he bought from Bonifacio.
The issuance of the bounced check here was with
fraudulent intent.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (BP 22)
Unlike Estafa which has its basis under the RPC, BP 22 is
enacted through a special law. A person can be charged
for violation of BP 22 when he commits the following
acts:
1. Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on
account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by
the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
would have been dishonored for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to
stop payment;
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to
keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety
(90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which
reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
How can a person be held guilty for Violation of BP
22?
Violation of BP 22 can be filed against any person
when the following are present:
1. Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value;
2. Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and
3. Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank
for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment.
Same with Estafa, the presence of all these requirements
is important. Otherwise, the charge of BP 22 will not attach.
Note that knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed
when it is proved that the issuer received a notice of
dishonor and that within 5 days from receipt thereof, he
failed to pay the amount of the check or make
arrangement for its payment. Additionally, in BP 22, good
faith is immaterial. Meaning, the mere issuance of an
unfunded check already consummates the crime.
Using the same example above, Andres can also be
charged for Violation of BP 22, other than Estafa, because
BP 22 cases also cover issuances of bouncing checks for
value received.
WHERE DOES THE DISPARITY LIE?
It is Estafa when, among others, you issue an unfunded
check with fraudulent intent in consideration of something
of value you received. Here intent is material and good
faith may be used as a defense.
It is a case for Violation of BP 22 when you issue an
unfunded check whether or not it is for an obligation you
contracted prior to the issuance of the check or not. Simply
put, you are liable for BP 22 whether you issue a check for
a present or a past obligation.
DEFENSES IN BP. 22WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE
DEFENSES IN B.P. 22
2
 SPL
1. The presentation of the registry card, with an
unauthorized signature, does not meet the required
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner
received such noticed, especially considering thathe
denied receiving it. (Suarez v. People 555, SCRA 238,
June 19, 2008)
2. Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds is
not conclusive as it may be rebutted by full payment. (Tan
vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank 552 SCRA
532, April 23, 2008)
3. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not
only that the accused issued a check that
wassubsequently dishonored. It must also establish that
the accused was actually notified that the checkwas
dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five (5)
banking days from receipt of the notice, topay the holder of
the check the amount due thereon or to make
arrangement for its payment.
4. Prescription is a proper defense. The prescriptive
period is 4 years reckoned from the lapse of thefive (5)
banking days from notice of dishonor within which to make
good the check.
5. Forgery of the signature appearing on the check
(Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 89)An
agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks
is irrelevant to the prosecution forviolation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. (Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v.
Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30,2009)
LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not A
PROPER DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF B.P.
22.(Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA
466, June 30, 2009)
NOVATION is not A PROPERDEFENSE IN B.P. 22.
IS “STOP PAYMENT” A PROPER DEFENSE IN BP. 22?
PAYMENT” or countermand, yet if it was clear from the
statement of account that the check bounceddue to
insufficiency of funds, the drawer of the check is still
liable.
In order to afford protection to business and the public
in general, and prevent the circulation of worthless
checks, Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, also known as
“An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit
and For Other Purposes,” was approved in April 1979.
The law punishes the acts of making and issuing a
check with knowledge by the issuer that at the time the
check is issued, he does not have sufficient funds, and
the failure to keep sufficient funds to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of 90
days from the date appearing on the check.
More than three decades after its enactment, let us
examine how the law has evolved throughout these
years.
When BP 22 was passed, many questioned the
statute’s validity vis-à-vis the constitutional guarantee
that no person shall be imprisoned for nonpayment of
debt. In upholding the constitutionality of BP 22, the
Supreme Court (SC) held that “the gravamen of the
offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored
upon its presentation for payment. It is not the
nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes.
The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor
to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit,
under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its
deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is
proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as
an offense against property, but an offense against
public order.” (Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419,
18 December 1986)
BP 22 punishes the issuer of the worthless check with
imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more
than one year or a fine of not less than but not more
than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in
no case exceed P200,000 or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Prior to the
amendment of BP Blg. 129 by Republic Act (RA)
7691 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
and the Metropolitan Trial Court), the Regional Trial
Court may acquire jurisdiction over BP 22 cases
depending on the penalties imposed. However, with the
subsequent amendment by RA 7691, the
Metropolitan Trial Court assumes exclusive jurisdiction
over BP 22 cases.
For a time, many were misled that violations of BP 22
have been decriminalized when the SC rendered
decisions modifying the penalties imposed by the lower
courts by imposing only the penalty of fine. (Vaca, et al.
v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 131714, 16 November
1998] and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines [G. R.
No. 130038, 18 September 2000]) In Administrative
Circular 12-2000 issued on November 21, 2000, the SC
required all courts and judges concerned to take note
of the policy rendered in those two cases, particularly
on the matter of the imposition of penalties, making it
appear that violation of BP 22 would only merit fines.
But the SC was quick to issue another circular, A.M.
3
 SPL
00-11-01-SC on February 13, 2001, clarifying that
when A.M. 12-2000 was issued, it was not meant to
remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to
lay down a rule of preference in the application of the
penalties provided for in BP 22. In effect, judges are not
directed to impose fine only as penalty for BP 22,
instead they are directed to exercise their sound
discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar
circumstances of each case, to determine whether the
imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests
of justice or whether non-imposition of imprisonment
would be contrary to the imperatives of justice.
In April 2003 in order to facilitate an expeditious and
inexpensive determination of BP 22 cases, the SC had
included the violation of BP 22 as one of the cases
governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure. One
notable provision under the Summary Procedure is
that the Court shall not order the arrest of a person who
was charged except for failure to appear in Court
whenever required.
It is the main intention of the law to make the issuer of a
worthless check liable since the introduction of
worthless checks is not just harmful to the innocent
payees but the entire economy, as well. However, one
must bear in mind that the mere issuance of a
worthless check would not make one liable for BP 22. It
is incumbent upon the accuser to prove not only that
the accused issued a check that was subsequently
dishonored, but it must be established that the accused
was actually notified that the check was dishonored.
The Notice of Dishonor must be in writing. A mere oral
notice to the drawer or maker of a check is not enough
to convict him with violation of BP 22. (Bax v. People,
G.R. No. 149858, 5 September 2007)
possibility of arrest and imprisonment. When violation
of BP 22 was included in those governed by the
Summary Procedure, a warrant of arrest is not
anymore issued when the case is filed in Court. It is
only when the accused fails to appear in Court that a
warrant of arrest may be issued against him; (2) Since
the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive
jurisdiction over violations of BP 22, no Hold Departure
Orders can be issued against those violators since
Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts have no power to
issue the same. Accused under trial can thus easily
evade prosecution by leaving the country; and (3) The
aggrieved parties have also failed to pursue the case
for BP 22 since the Courts require them to pay the
corresponding filing fees. They need to shell out
amounts for filing fees after they have been duped and
victimized with checks, which they cannot encash.
In the end, there appears a need to revisit the
provisions of BP 22 and other laws affecting the same
to afford the fullest protection to the public and the
economy in general. A check as a substitute for money
plays a vital role in commercial transactions. Any
person who wishes to trample upon the smooth flow of
commercial transactions must be held liable.

Aside from threat of imprisonment that an issuer of a

bum check may face, he shall, after conviction, be
disqualified to run for public office for a certain period of
time. Under the Omnibus Election Code, any person
who has been sentenced by final judgment for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a
candidate and to hold any office. As held by the SC,
violation of BP 22 is considered a crime involving moral
turpitude, just like the crime of embezzlement, forgery,
robbery and swindling.

More than three decades after its enactment, does BP

22 still serve its purpose? Does the law still serve as a
deterrent to those unscrupulous issuers of bum checks.

Let us consider these: (1) It is undeniable that what

deters a person from committing a crime is the