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
 BP 22, often referred to as the "Bouncing Checks
Law, governs the criminal liability arising from the
issuance of bounced checks. What the law punishes
is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which the check was issued, nor the
terms and conditions of its issuance. To determine
the reasons for which checks are issued, or the terms
and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode
the faith the public reposes in the stability and
commercial value of checks as currency substitutes,
and bring about havoc in trade and in banking
communities. (Caras vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129900, 2 October 2001)
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 1 of the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes two
distinct acts :

1. Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply

on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue
that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank.
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank 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 90 days from
the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
In the first paragraph,
the drawer knows that he does
not have sufficient funds to
cover the check at the time of
its issuance
the offense is consummated
by the dishonor of the check for
insufficiency of funds or credit.
The check is worthless at the
time of issuance since the
drawer had neither sufficient
funds in nor credit with the
drawee bank at the time
the 90-day presentment
period is not expressly
provided, while such period is
an express element of the
second offense.
In the second paragraph,
the drawer has sufficient funds
at the time of issuance but fails
to keep sufficient funds or
maintain credit within ninety
(90) days from the date
appearing on the check.
the offense is consummated
by the dishonor of the check
for insufficiency of funds or
credit.
The check is good when issued
as drawer had sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee
bank when issued.
the 90-day presentment
period is an express element
of the second offense.
 Elements: General
The elements of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22
are:
1. drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or
for value (sec.1);
2. knowledge by the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in
full upon presentment (sec.2);and
3. said 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. (sec.3)
 Applicable penalties
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
 In A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC (2001), the Supreme Court
clarified that the earlier circular, Administrative Circular
12-2000, did not remove imprisonment as an alternative
penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. 22.

The Judges may, "in the exercise of sound discretion, and

taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of
each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine
alone would best serve the interests of justice or
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would
depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence
on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives of justice." Also, "[s]hould only a fine be
imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine,
there is no legal obstacle to the application of the
Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment."
Sec. 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.
 How can there be presumption that the
maker, drawer, or issuer had knowledge of
the insufficiency of funds?
The presumption arises only after 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.
 must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the
insufficiency of funds at the time the check was issued.
The prosecution must establish that the accused was actually notified
that the check was dishonored, and 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.
The notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing.
A mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check
is not enough. It's true that Section 2 does not state that the notice of
dishonor be in writing.
This, however, should be taken in conjunction with Section 3, which
provides 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.
This is consistent with the rule that penal statutes have to be
construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
Without a written notice of dishonor of the checks, there is no way of
determining when the 5-day period prescribed in Section 2 would
start and end.
Sec. 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.

Notwithstanding 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.
Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision of

this Act be declared unconstitutional, the remaining
provisions shall continue to be in force.

Sec. 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days

after publication in the Official Gazette.

Approved: April 3, 1979.

The attacks on the constitutionality of BP 22, are
the following:
1.it offends the constitutional provision
forbidding imprisonment for debt;
2.it impairs freedom of contract;
3.it contravenes the equal protection clause;
4.it unduly delegates legislative and executive
powers;
5.its enactment is flawed in that during its
passage the Interim Batasan violated the
constitutional provision prohibiting
amendments to a bill on Third Reading.
Does BP 22 violate the Constitutional mandate
that no person shall be imprisoned for debt?

It has been argued that BP 22 in reality punishes

the non-payment of debt. However, while it is
true that no person can be imprisoned for debt,
what BP 22 punishes is the act of issuing bad
checks, and not the failure to pay a debt. Its not
a bad debt law; its rather a bad check law.
Its not designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
debt.
Does BP 22 impairs the freedom of people to
enter into contracts?

The Constitution also guarantees the right to enter

into contract. Each one should be responsible for the
contracts entered into. If you get into a bad bargain,
if you get a bad check, then its your fault for not
making sure that the other person is trustworthy.

Checks, however, are not simple contracts between

two persons. It is a commercial instrument which, in
this modem day and age, has become a convenient
substitute for money. It is an integral part of the
banking system. Besides, what the law protects are
lawful contracts.
Does BP 22 impairs the equal protection of the laws clause?

The challenge is to the effect that BP 22 is discriminatory

or is violative of the equal protection of the laws since it
penalizes the drawer of the check, but not the payee. It
had been argued that the payee is just as responsible for
the crime as the drawer of the check, since without the
indispensable participation of the payee by his acceptance
of the check there would be no crime. It is settled,
however, that the clause "equal protection of the laws"
does not preclude classification of individuals, who may
be accorded different treatment under the law as long as
the classification is no unreasonable or arbitrary. The
argument premised on the equal protection of the law is
tantamount to saying that, to give equal protection, the
law should punish both the swindler and the swindled.
Improper delegation of legislative powers

What cannot be delegated is the power to legislate, or

the power to make laws. which means, as applied to the
present case, the power to define the offense sought to
be punished and to prescribe the penalty. By no stretch of
logic or imagination can it be said that the power to
define the crime and prescribe the penalty therefor has
been in any manner delegated to the payee. Neither is
there any provision in the statute that can be construed,
no matter how remotely, as undue delegation of
executive power
 How is estafa through the issuance of bouncing
checks committed?
It is committed by means of any of the following
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)
 What are the elements of estafa through the
issuance of bouncing checks?
Postdating or issuance of a check in payment
of an obligation contracted at the time the
check was issued
Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
Damage to the payee thereof.
If any of these elements is not present then a
person cannot be held liable for estafa.
 Problem:
Gina went to a boutique to shop for clothes.
Since she is a friend of the store owner, she
was allowed to pay later. After 10 days, Gina
issued a check in payment of the clothes she
bought. The check bounced to the dismay of
the store owner. Can Gina be held liable for
estafa?
 No. Gina cannot be held liable for estafa
because the check was issued in payment of a
pre-existing debt. As mentioned earlier, estafa
through the issuance of a bouncing check can
be committed only if the check was issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the
time the check was issued. Note however that
while there is no estafa, nevertheless, Gina
can be held liable for another crime, which is
Violation of BP 22.
 Can the issuance of bouncing checks give rise
to other offense aside from estafa?

Yes. A single act of issuance of bouncing

checks may give rise to several offenses such
as estafa and violation of B.P. 22 or the
Bouncing Checks Law
BP 22 for the state to protect the
integrity of checks for commerce

Estafa imprisoned for deceit/defraud

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

It is undeniable that what deters a person from committing

a crime is the 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;
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;

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.
Notes:
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.