Bouncing Check Law Defenses (Philippines): A Comprehensive Guide

For educational purposes only and not a substitute for legal advice. Philippine statutes, rules, and jurisprudence evolve; consult counsel for your specific case.

1) The Law at a Glance

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22)—the “Bouncing Checks Law”—penalizes the making/drawing and issuance of a check that is dishonored upon presentment for insufficiency of funds or credit, or because the account is closed.

Elements the prosecution must prove

The accused made/drew and issued a check to apply on account or for value;
The check was dishonored when presented (e.g., DAIF/DAUD/Account Closed);
The accused knew of insufficient funds/credit at the time of issuance (this can be presumed under the statute in certain circumstances—see below).

BP 22 is generally malum prohibitum: intent to defraud is not an element. What’s punished is the act of issuing a worthless check, not deceit per se (deceit matters for estafa under the Revised Penal Code, which is a different offense—see §10).

Penalties (statutory framework)

Imprisonment: not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year;
Fine: generally not less than the amount of the check and not more than double its amount;
Or both, at the court’s discretion. Supreme Court administrative circulars have guided courts to favor fines where appropriate, but imprisonment remains legally available.

2) The Presumptions (and How to Rebut Them)

BP 22 builds in evidentiary presumptions to simplify proof of the knowledge element:

If the check is presented within a statutory period from its date (practitioners treat within 90 days as the safe window), and it is dishonored, and
The issuer fails to pay (or make arrangements for payment) within five (5) banking days after **receiving **a written notice of dishonor,

then a prima facie presumption arises that the issuer knew of insufficient funds when the check was issued.

Defense implications: Knock out any leg of that sequence—e.g., no proper written notice received; payment within 5 banking days from actual receipt of notice; presentment beyond the recognized window—and the statutory presumption collapses (the State may still prove actual knowledge by other evidence, but it loses the shortcut).

3) Core, Frequently-Effective Defenses

A. No (or Defective) Written Notice of Dishonor

The prosecution must show the accused actually received written notice of dishonor.
Common issues:
- Notice sent to the wrong address or only to counsel without proof of authority;
- Oral or SMS notice only;
- Registry receipts without proof of contents and proof of receipt, or unreturned demand letters with no tracking.
Effect: Without proof of proper written notice and receipt, the five-day window never starts, the presumption of knowledge does not arise, and reasonable doubt often results.

B. Payment or Valid Arrangement Within 5 Banking Days

Full payment, or even a credible arrangement for full payment within five banking days from actual receipt of written notice, defeats the presumption of knowledge.
Documentary proof (official receipt, bank transfer confirmation, written settlement) is key.

C. Check Presented Too Late

If the check was not presented within the customary statutory period (commonly treated as within 90 days of its date), the presumption may not arise.
This does not automatically acquit—but the State must now prove actual knowledge without presumptions.

D. No Issuance / No Delivery / Forgery

BP 22 punishes making/drawing and issuance. If the accused did not deliver the check to the payee/holder, or the signature is forged, or the check was stolen/intercepted before delivery, criminal liability does not attach.
Consider handwriting experts, bank specimen cards, and chain-of-custody proof.

E. Material Alteration / Not a “Check”

A materially altered instrument (e.g., amount, date, payee) or an instrument that is not a demand draft drawn on a bank (e.g., a promissory note, or a voucher not payable on demand) falls outside BP 22.
Post-issuance stop payment alone is not a defense if funds were insufficient at issuance, but stop payment for a legitimate dispute where sufficient funds existed and the instrument was not meant as immediate payment may be relevant to knowledge and good faith.

F. Venue / Jurisdiction Defenses

Criminal actions must be filed where any essential element occurred: place of issuance/delivery or location of the drawee bank (dishonor).
If filed elsewhere, move to quash for improper venue.

G. Corporate Checks: Wrong Accused

The signatory who actually issued the check is typically the proper accused. Mere corporate officers who did not sign cannot be criminally liable just by virtue of their positions.
Conversely, a personal signatory cannot hide behind the corporation if the evidence shows personal issuance.

H. Amount/Identity Mismatch

Discrepancies in check number, amount, payee, date, or bank between the information/complaint and the actual exhibits can be fatal, particularly if they go to identity of the offense or variance that prejudices the defense.

I. Chain of Custody of the Check

The original dishonored check and the bank’s reason for dishonor are critical. Missing originals, unclear endorsements, or an unexplained path from payee to private complainant create reasonable doubt.

4) Tactical/Procedural Defenses

Motion to Quash Information
- Defects on the face: wrong venue, offense not charged, facts do not constitute an offense, duplicity.
Demurrer to Evidence
- After prosecution rests, argue failure to establish issuance, dishonor, or proper notice.
Prescription
- BP 22 is a special law; Act No. 3326 on prescription applies. Track date of issuance, date of dishonor, date of receipt of written notice, and date of filing. (Exact application can be nuanced; raise if the timeline is long or there are gaps.)
Plea Bargaining / Settlement
- Criminal liability is not automatically extinguished by payment after the 5-day period, but courts may treat full restitution, settlement, and absence of bad faith as strong grounds for fine-only penalties or mitigating outcomes.

5) Evidence Checklist for the Defense

Issuance & Delivery
- Who received the check? When and where? Any proof of consideration?
Authenticity
- Specimen signatures; expert examination if forgery is alleged.
Dishonor
- Bank return slip/stamp with reason (DAIF/DAUD/Account Closed).
Notice of Dishonor
- Copy of written notice, registry receipts, proof of contents, and proof of actual receipt by the accused (not just mailing).
Timing
- Date of check, presentment date, dishonor date, notice receipt date, payment/arrangement within 5 banking days.
Funds / Credit
- Bank statements around issuance date; evidence of overdraft line/credit.
Underlying Deal
- Contracts, invoices, delivery receipts; useful both for context and potential civil defenses.
Venue
- Evidence showing where issuance/delivery/dishonor occurred.

6) Special Notes on Written Notice of Dishonor

Form: must be written (demand letters are common).
Service: personal service with acknowledgment, or registered mail to the correct address is typical.
Proof: keep registry receipt, registry return card, affidavit of service, and ideally the envelope.
Substituted/constructive service is risky for the prosecution—exploit defects.

7) Penalties, Sentencing Trends, and Collateral Consequences

Courts frequently impose fines calibrated to the check amount (sometimes with or without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), taking judicial guidance from administrative circulars encouraging non-custodial penalties in BP 22 where warranted.
Civil liability (amount of the check plus damages/interest) is typically adjudged in the criminal case.
Multiple checks = multiple counts; sentences may run successively unless ordered otherwise.

8) BP 22 vs. Estafa by Postdating/Issuing a Check (Art. 315(2)(d), RPC)

Point	BP 22	Estafa (Art. 315(2)(d))
Nature	Malum prohibitum (act punished)	Malum in se (requires deceit/damage)
Key Element	Issuance + dishonor + knowledge (with presumptions)	Deceit at the time of issuance causing the victim to part with money/property
Check as Guaranty	Still generally punishable	Often a defense (if truly a guaranty for a pre-existing debt and no deceit)
Payment after 5 days	Does not erase criminal liability (but affects presumption/penalty)	May negate damage or support lack of deceit, but not automatic

Strategy: If the same facts spawn both BP 22 and estafa charges, each has its own defenses and evidentiary burdens. Tailor arguments accordingly.

9) Common Prosecution Vulnerabilities to Probe

Incomplete paper trail for notice of dishonor;
Presentment outside the recognized period;
Hazy delivery or no proof of consideration;
Wrong venue;
Failure to produce the original check or competent bank proof of dishonor;
Overreliance on the statutory presumption without the necessary prerequisites.

10) Defense Playbook: Practical Moves

Immediate Timeline Audit: Build a date-by-date chart (issuance → deposit → dishonor → notice → receipt → response/payment).
Lock Down Addresses: Was notice sent to the right address? Was it received?
Five-Day Window: If you paid or arranged payment within five banking days, marshal hard proof.
Bank Records: Show available funds/credit at issuance (or challenge the State to prove otherwise).
Venue Challenge: File a motion to quash if the case is filed where no element occurred.
Demurrer Readiness: If the State’s case hinges on a missing or defective notice, prepare to demur after prosecution rests.
Mitigation Strategy: If conviction risk is high, negotiate restitution and push for fine-only penalty.

11) Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is a post-dated check covered? Yes. Post-dated checks are checks for BP 22 purposes.

Q: What if I issued the check only as “security”? BP 22 generally still applies; the law punishes the issuance of a worthless check regardless of the underlying contract label. (That argument is stronger as a defense to estafa.)

Q: Can payment after five days dismiss the case? Not automatically. It can remove the presumption (if within five days) or mitigate penalty (if later). It does not automatically extinguish BP 22 criminal liability.

Q: Who is liable for a corporate check? Typically, the signatory who issued the check. Officers who did not sign are not criminally liable solely due to their titles.

12) Quick Templates (Defense-Oriented)

Key Issues Outline for Cross-Examination
- Who received the check and when?
- Proof that the accused received written notice?
- Exact presentment date vs. check date?
- Bank’s reason for dishonor and witness competence?
- Where did issuance/delivery/dishonor occur (for venue)?
Document Request List
- Original check; bank return slip/stamp; deposit slip; registry receipts and return cards; affidavits of service; contracts/invoices; bank statements around issuance.

13) Takeaways

Most acquittals turn on procedural rigor: notice of dishonor, timing, and venue.
Payment within the five-day statutory window is a silver bullet against the presumption of knowledge.
Labeling a check as “security” rarely helps under BP 22; tailor that argument to estafa, not BP 22.
Preserve originals, build a meticulous timeline, and challenge every link in the prosecution’s chain.

Need help turning your facts into a defense timeline or issue map? Share the key dates (issuance, presentment, dishonor, notice receipt, any payments/arrangements) and I’ll structure a litigation checklist you can use with your counsel.