Bouncing Checks in the Philippines: BP 22 vs. Estafa — Elements and Penalties

Executive summary

In the Philippines, a dishonored (“bouncing”) check can trigger two different crimes arising from the same act: (1) Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the Bouncing Checks Law (a malum prohibitum offense that punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check), and (2) Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (a malum in se offense that requires deceit and damage). The same check may support both charges without violating double jeopardy because each offense has different elements. Civil liability to pay the amount of the check (plus possible interest and damages) also attaches.

Quick contrast

Topic	BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)	Estafa (Art. 315(2)(d), RPC)
Nature	Malum prohibitum — intent to defraud is immaterial	Malum in se — deceit and damage are essential
What is punished	Issuing a check that bounces for lack of funds/credit (or would have, but for a stop-payment without valid cause)	Defrauding someone by issuing/postdating a check to induce them to part with money/property/services
Key presumptions	Knowledge of lack of funds/credit is prima facie if: (a) the check is presented within 90 days from its date, and (b) the issuer fails to pay or make arrangements within 5 banking days from written notice of dishonor	Deceit is prima facie if the issuer fails to deposit the amount within 3 days from notice of dishonor
Must there be damage?	No	Yes (actual prejudice to the offended party)
Typical defenses	No written notice/ no actual receipt; payment within 5 banking days; check not presented within 90 days (affects presumption); not the maker/drawer; valid stop-payment cause; forgery	No deceit (e.g., check for pre-existing debt or mere security); no damage; deposit within 3 days; lack of knowledge; good faith
Penalty anchor	Short-term jail or fine (often fine-only per SC guidance), plus civil liability	Penalty depends on amount defrauded (scaled under RA 10951), plus civil liability
Venue (typical)	Any place where an element occurred (issuance/delivery; drawee bank; place of dishonor/presentment)	Where deceit was committed and damage occurred (often where the transaction was induced/consummated)

BP 22 in detail

Elements

The accused makes, draws, and issues a check. “Issue” includes delivery of the check to another.
The check is issued to apply on account or for value. BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check regardless of purpose (even if issued as “security” or “guarantee”).
At the time of issuance, the maker/drawer knows they have insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank to cover the check.
The check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds/credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had the drawer, without valid cause, not ordered a stop-payment.
- Dishonor reasons that usually satisfy BP 22: “DAIF” (drawn against insufficient funds), “DAUD” (drawn against uncollected deposit), “ACCOUNT CLOSED”.
- “Stale check”, signature irregularities, or technical reasons do not by themselves prove the “insufficient funds/credit” element.

Statutory presumptions (how prosecutors typically prove “knowledge”)

Presentment within 90 days from the date on the check + dishonor + written notice of dishonor actually received by the issuer + failure to pay/make arrangements within 5 banking days → prima facie knowledge of insufficiency.
- Presentment after 90 days does not automatically defeat a case; it simply removes the presumption. The State must then prove knowledge by other evidence.

Notice of dishonor — practice pointers

Must be in writing and actually received by the maker/drawer (personal service or registered mail with proof such as registry receipts and return cards, or other credible proof of actual receipt).
The 5 banking days count from receipt of the written notice.

Penalties (criminal) and policy on fines

Statutory penalty: imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year or a fine of at least but not more than double the check amount, capped at ₱200,000, or both, at the court’s discretion.
Supreme Court administrative guidance encourages imposing fines (rather than jail) in appropriate BP 22 cases, without decriminalizing the offense; courts still retain discretion to impose imprisonment where warranted.
Each check is a separate count. Probation may be available. Criminal liability is without prejudice to civil liability.

Civil liability

Independent of the criminal penalty, courts typically order payment of the face amount of the check plus lawful interest, costs, and in proper cases damages and attorney’s fees.

Prescription (time-bar)

As a special law offense generally punished by up to one year’s imprisonment, BP 22 cases ordinarily prescribe in four (4) years (counting is fact-sensitive; filing with the prosecutor interrupts prescription).

Estafa by bouncing check (Art. 315(2)(d)) in detail

Elements

The accused postdated or issued a check to the offended party in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of issuance (i.e., the check induced the transaction).
- If the check was given only as security or for a pre-existing debt, this element typically fails for paragraph 2(d) (though estafa might still be charged under a different paragraph if other deceit occurred).
At the time of issuance, the accused knew they had no funds/insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank.
The check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds/credit.
The offended party suffered damage (e.g., parted with money/property/services and was not paid).

Presumption of deceit

Failure to deposit the amount sufficient to cover the check within three (3) days from notice of dishonor is prima facie evidence of deceit. This does not create liability by itself; the State must still prove damage and the other elements.

Penalties

Estafa penalties are graduated by the amount defrauded under Article 315 as amended by RA 10951 (2017).
- The higher the amount, the heavier the penalty (ranging from correctional to afflictive penalties), with incremental increases beyond certain thresholds.
- Exact brackets depend on the amount involved. Courts also award civil indemnity (restitution), interest, and, where proper, damages.
Prescription depends on the imposable penalty: generally 10 years for correctional and 15 years for afflictive penalties (specifics are fact- and amount-dependent).

Can both BP 22 and Estafa be filed for the same check?

Yes. The Supreme Court has long held that prosecution for both BP 22 and estafa (2)(d) does not violate double jeopardy. They protect different societal interests and require different elements. However, civil recovery cannot be duplicated: the offended party cannot collect the same loss twice.

Venue and jurisdiction (practical guide)

BP 22: File in any place where an element occurred — issuance/delivery, drawee bank location, or dishonor/presentment. BP 22 cases are generally covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure to expedite proceedings.
Estafa: Venue is where the deceit took place and damage was suffered (often where the victim was induced or where payment was supposed to be made).

Typical evidence and documents

For BP 22

Original/photocopy of the check.
Bank return slip/memo stating reason for dishonor (e.g., DAIF/DAUD/ACCOUNT CLOSED).
Written notice of dishonor and proof of actual receipt (or credible proof of attempted service and refusal).
Proof of presentment (date of deposit/clearing).
Identification of the issuer/maker (e.g., signatory authority for corporate checks).

For Estafa (2)(d)

Everything above plus evidence of deceit and damage, e.g.:
- Contract, sales invoice, loan document, or messages showing the transaction was induced by the check;
- Proof the offended party parted with money/property/services relying on the check;
- Computation of losses/interest.

Common defenses & how courts view them

BP 22

No written notice/ no actual receipt: defeats the statutory presumption of knowledge; the State must prove knowledge by other means.
Payment within 5 banking days from notice: negates the presumption (though civil liability remains).
Presentment after 90 days: presumption does not arise; not automatically fatal if knowledge is otherwise proven.
Valid stop-payment cause: e.g., forgery, material alteration, loss/theft — may defeat the “would-have-bounced” alternative.
Not the maker/drawer / lack of authority: only the person who made/drew/issued the check is liable; mere indorsers are not liable under BP 22.
Forgery: a forged signature is no consent, defeating the actus reus.

Estafa (2)(d)

Pre-existing debt / check as mere security: typically negates the “inducement” element for paragraph 2(d).
No deceit / good faith: bona fide belief the check would be funded, or immediate cure (e.g., deposit within 3 days), rebuts deceit.
No damage: the offended party suffered no actual loss (e.g., fully paid/refunded before damage set in).
Lack of knowledge of insufficiency at time of issuance.

Important: Payment or settlement after the 5-day (BP 22) or 3-day (estafa) window does not automatically extinguish criminal liability, though it may mitigate penalties and will satisfy the civil aspect.

Corporate checks and signatories

For a corporate account, criminal liability generally targets the natural person(s) who signed and issued the check on the corporation’s behalf (they are the “makers/drawers”).
The corporation, as drawer, may face civil liability. Criminal penalties like imprisonment apply to natural persons.

Filing strategy (for complainants)

Act quickly: Present the check within 90 days from its date.
Send written notice of dishonor and secure proof of receipt.
Decide whether to file BP 22, estafa (2)(d), or both:
- File BP 22 when proof of deceit/damage is thin but the check clearly bounced for lack of funds and notice/5-day rule is in place.
- File estafa when you can show inducement and damage.
Preserve evidence: keep bank memos, registry receipts, return cards, messages, contracts, and computation of losses.
Civil action: pursue restitution/interest; ensure no double recovery if both cases are filed.

Immediate to-dos (for accused)

Upon receiving written notice, fund and pay within the statutory window (5 banking days for BP 22; deposit within 3 days for estafa’s presumption) and document your compliance or bona fide arrangements.
Gather proof of valid stop-payment cause, forgery, lack of authority, or good faith.
If the check was for a pre-existing debt or mere security, collect documents/messages proving no inducement.
Explore settlement for the civil aspect; it does not automatically end the criminal case, but often influences prosecutorial and judicial discretion.

FAQs

Is a check issued as “guarantee” covered by BP 22? Yes. BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check regardless of purpose; intent to defraud is not an element.

Can the same check lead to both BP 22 and estafa? Yes. Different elements; no double jeopardy. Civil recovery cannot be duplicated.

Does a “stop-payment order” help? Only if there is a valid cause (e.g., forgery, loss, material alteration). A stop-payment to avoid a bounce does not excuse liability; in BP 22, the law even covers checks that would have been dishonored but for such an order.

What if the bank’s reason is “stale check” or “irregular signature”? Those reasons do not prove insufficiency of funds. BP 22 focuses on lack of funds/credit (or the “would-have-bounced” scenario). Prosecutors typically rely on bank memos showing DAIF/DAUD/ACCOUNT CLOSED.

What if I paid later? Payment after the 5-day (BP 22) or 3-day (estafa presumption) window generally does not erase criminal liability, but it mitigates and satisfies the civil aspect.

Final note

This overview distills the doctrines practitioners regularly apply in BP 22 and estafa (2)(d) cases. Specific outcomes turn on dates, bank memos, notice and receipt, presentment, what induced the transaction, and the amount involved. For any live dispute, consult counsel for advice tailored to your facts and timelines.