I. Overview and Policy

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) penalizes the act of making or issuing a check that is later dishonored by the bank for certain reasons—most commonly, insufficient funds or account closed. The law is designed to protect public confidence in checks as substitutes for cash in commercial transactions. It is treated as an offense against public order and the banking system, not merely a private dispute.

A BP 22 case is criminal in nature, but it almost always sits beside (or alongside) a civil money claim: the underlying debt, price, or obligation for which the check was issued.

II. What BP 22 Punishes (Scope)

BP 22 generally covers:

Post-dated or dated checks issued for an obligation (for value).
Checks issued as payment, as partial payment, or as security (security checks are still commonly litigated under BP 22, depending on the facts and proof of “for value” and issuance).
Checks dishonored due to:
- Insufficient funds (DAIF) / no funds (DAIF/NF)
- Account closed
- Certain forms of dishonor that effectively indicate lack of credit with the drawee bank (fact-specific)

BP 22 is distinct from Estafa (swindling) under the Revised Penal Code. A single transaction can sometimes lead to both allegations, but the elements and proof requirements differ.

III. Elements of BP 22 (What the Prosecution Must Prove)

A successful BP 22 prosecution usually requires proof of the following core elements:

1) Making, drawing, and issuance of a check

The accused made/drew and issued a check.
There must be proof the accused signed and delivered the check.

Common proof: the original check, bank records, testimony on issuance, admissions, signatures, and surrounding transaction documents.

2) The check was issued “to apply on account or for value”

This means the check was issued in connection with an obligation, payment, or consideration (e.g., price of goods, loan proceeds, rent, services rendered, settlement of an account).

A check issued for value does not require that the underlying obligation be undisputed; what matters is that the check was issued in relation to an account/transaction.

3) The check was dishonored by the drawee bank upon presentment

Dishonor must be shown to be due to:

Insufficient funds, or
Lack of credit, or
A reason that the law treats as functional equivalent (often, account closed is treated strongly against the drawer)

Important: The check must be presented for payment to the bank. If it is never presented, the dishonor element is not met.

4) Knowledge of insufficient funds or lack of credit at the time of issuance

BP 22 uses a practical evidentiary rule: knowledge is presumed if the drawer fails to pay after proper notice.

5) Written notice of dishonor + failure to pay within the statutory period

A central feature of BP 22 is the notice requirement. Generally:

The payee/holder must give the drawer a written notice of dishonor.
The drawer must be given a chance to pay the amount of the check (or make arrangements) within five (5) banking days from receipt of notice.
If the drawer does not pay within that period, the presumption of knowledge and criminal exposure typically attaches.

Practical note: Many BP 22 cases are lost by the complainant because they cannot prove receipt of the written notice of dishonor by the accused (or because the notice was defective).

IV. Presentment Rules and Timing

A. Presentment within a reasonable time

Checks are generally expected to be presented within a reasonable time. The actual banking validity periods and clearing rules affect collectability, but BP 22 cases often focus on:

Was the check presented, and
Was it dishonored, and
Was notice properly given?

B. Re-depositing

Holders often redeposit a bounced check. Re-depositing can help confirm dishonor patterns but does not automatically cure defects in notice requirements. The key is still documented dishonor and proper written notice.

V. Venue and Jurisdiction (Where the Case May Be Filed)

Venue in BP 22 depends on facts such as:

Where the check was issued/delivered,
Where it was presented,
Where it was dishonored, and/or
Where notice and other material acts occurred

In practice, complainants often file where issuance/delivery occurred or where the check was deposited/presented, subject to rules on proper venue and the specific circumstances of the transaction.

VI. Common Defenses in BP 22

Defenses typically attack one or more elements, especially issuance, value, dishonor, and notice.

1) No issuance / forged signature / unauthorized issuance

The accused did not sign or issue the check, or the signature was forged.
Corporate checks: the person charged must be shown as the actual signatory/issuer (and not merely an officer with no participation in issuance).

2) No “for value” or no consideration

The check was not issued to apply on account or for value.
This is fact-intensive; even “security checks” are often argued here, depending on proof of the underlying consideration.

3) No presentment / no dishonor

The check was never presented to the bank.
Or it was presented but not dishonored for a BP 22-covered reason.

4) Lack of proper written notice of dishonor

This is one of the most potent defenses.

No written notice was sent.
Notice was sent but the prosecution cannot prove receipt by the accused.
Notice was sent to the wrong address, wrong person, or without proof of delivery.
Notice was purely verbal or informal (often insufficient).

5) Payment within five banking days from receipt of notice

If the drawer pays the amount of the check (or otherwise satisfies the legal requirement) within the five-banking-day window, criminal liability is typically avoided because the presumption of knowledge is negated.

6) The check bounced for a reason not covered

Examples that are often litigated:

Stop payment orders (may still be covered depending on why the stop payment was ordered and whether it relates to lack of funds/credit)
Material alterations, stale checks, or irregularities (these can complicate the dishonor element and causation)

7) Absence of intent to defraud is generally not a defense

BP 22 is commonly treated as punishing the act of issuing a worthless check regardless of intent to defraud; the focus is on the act and its consequences plus notice/nonpayment.

8) Novation, compromise, or restructuring

A restructuring agreement or compromise may affect the underlying civil obligation, but it does not automatically erase criminal liability unless it effectively shows a failure of an element (often, the notice/payment aspect or proof issues). Still, settlement has major practical effects in litigation and sentencing considerations.

9) Mistake, bank error, or non-availability of funds due to external causes

If dishonor is due to bank error or circumstances not attributable to lack of funds/credit at issuance, the defense may be raised—but it requires strong documentary proof.

VII. Liability of Corporate Officers and Signatories

For checks issued from a corporate account:

The person typically exposed under BP 22 is the actual signatory who made/issued the check.
Merely being a director or officer does not automatically create criminal liability without proof of participation in issuance.

VIII. Criminal Penalties and Practical Sentencing

BP 22 provides penalties that can include:

Fine, and/or
Imprisonment, within ranges set by law

In practice, Philippine courts and later policy guidance have often emphasized fines over imprisonment, especially when the case is essentially a debt dispute clothed in criminal process. However, outcomes vary with facts, number of checks, amounts, recidivism, and conduct during litigation.

Also note:

Each dishonored check can be charged as a separate offense, so multiple checks can mean multiple counts.

IX. Relationship to the Civil Case (Collection of Sum of Money)

Even if the BP 22 case is dismissed or results in acquittal, the payee may still pursue:

A civil action for collection of the underlying obligation (loan, purchase price, etc.), and/or
Civil damages if supported by evidence

Conversely, the filing of a civil case does not automatically prevent a BP 22 criminal case.

X. Settlement Options (From Demand Stage to Trial)

Settlement is common at every stage. The options and their legal consequences depend heavily on timing and documentation.

A. Pre-litigation settlement (best leverage point)

Typically begins with a demand letter that functions as (or includes) the notice of dishonor and demand to pay within the required period.

Common settlement structures:

Full payment of the check amount
Payment with interest and costs (negotiated)
Installment plan with clear terms:
- schedule, mode, default clauses
- whether a new set of checks will be issued (risky for both sides)
Replacement check (also risky; can create a second BP 22 exposure if it bounces)
Debt restructuring with security (pledge, mortgage, guaranty)

Key drafting points:

Clear identification of the bounced check(s): number, date, bank, amount
Acknowledgment of the obligation and settlement terms
Default and acceleration clauses
Allocation of payments and handling of attorney’s fees
Whether the payee will file or refrain from filing a complaint upon compliance

B. Settlement after filing but before arraignment / early stage

Parties can settle and the complainant can execute documents supporting withdrawal or non-pursuit. Practical outcomes include:

Complainant’s non-appearance and/or motion consistent with settlement (subject to court/prosecutor rules)
Reduction of friction, possible dismissal depending on procedural posture and sufficiency of evidence

C. Settlement during trial

Still possible. Often involves:

Payment of principal plus some negotiated premium
A compromise agreement and joint manifestations

Even when settlement occurs, courts may still require proper procedural steps before disposing of the criminal case.

D. Affidavit of Desistance (what it does and doesn’t do)

An Affidavit of Desistance is common but should be understood realistically:

It may be persuasive in showing lack of interest or settlement.
It does not automatically dismiss a criminal case because BP 22 is considered an offense involving public interest.
Still, in practice, desistance plus settlement can significantly affect prosecutorial discretion and court handling, depending on the stage and evidence.

E. Practical settlement strategy (drawer/accused side)

Move quickly once notice is received; the five banking-day window is critical.
Pay in a traceable manner (bank transfer, manager’s check, official receipt).
Obtain a written acknowledgment of payment and agreement to settle, with clear terms.

F. Practical settlement strategy (payee/holder side)

Preserve documentation: the original check, return slip, bank certification of dishonor, and proof of notice receipt.
Consider whether installment plans are worth the enforcement risk.
Structure payments with written acknowledgments and default remedies.

XI. Demand Letters and Notice of Dishonor: Best Practices

A. Contents commonly included

Identification of check(s)
Statement of dishonor and reason (as reflected in bank return)
Demand to pay within the statutory period
Payment instructions and deadline
Warning of legal action if unpaid

B. Proof of receipt

Because notice and receipt are frequently contested, parties often use:

Personal service with signed acknowledgment
Registered mail with return card and corroborating evidence
Courier with proof of delivery and recipient details

The prosecution’s ability to prove receipt by the accused is often decisive.

XII. Procedural Path (Typical Flow)

Dishonor of the check upon presentment
Written notice of dishonor served to the drawer
Drawer fails to pay within 5 banking days
Complaint-affidavit filed before the prosecutor (or appropriate office)
Preliminary investigation (submission of counter-affidavit, reply, etc.)
Information filed in court if probable cause is found
Arraignment, pre-trial, trial
Judgment (conviction/acquittal), and possible civil aspects

BP 22 cases are documentation-heavy: check, dishonor proof, notice proof, and the transaction’s surrounding documents.

XIII. Practical Risk Points and How Cases Commonly Succeed or Fail

For complainants (holders/payees), cases often fail because:

No proof of receipt of written notice of dishonor
Incomplete or inconsistent documentation of dishonor
Inability to prove issuance/delivery by the accused
Weak linkage to “for value” in contested scenarios

For accused (drawers), cases often become difficult when:

Signature and issuance are clear
Dishonor is documented as insufficient funds/account closed
Written notice and receipt are well-proven
No payment was made within the statutory window

XIV. BP 22 vs. Estafa (High-Level Distinction)

BP 22: focuses on the issuance of a check that bounces, plus notice and nonpayment. Estafa: focuses on deceit and damage, and typically requires stronger proof of fraudulent acts and reliance.

A transaction may trigger both allegations in some fact patterns, but they are not the same case and not proven the same way.

XV. Key Takeaways

BP 22 is a criminal statute anchored on the issuance of a check, its dishonor, and the drawer’s failure to make good after written notice of dishonor.
The five banking-day period after receipt of notice is often the single most important practical window.
The most common decisive issue in litigation is proof of proper notice and receipt.
Settlement is possible at every stage; a well-documented settlement can resolve the civil dispute and often influences the trajectory of the criminal case, though it does not mechanically erase criminal liability.
Each bounced check can mean a separate count, creating compounding exposure.