Bouncing Checks Issued from a Closed Account in the Philippines: BP 22, Estafa, and How to Recover the Amount

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you’re facing a live case, consult counsel to evaluate facts, deadlines, and strategy.

Quick primer: why closed-account checks are serious

Issuing a check against a closed account is among the clearest fact patterns for criminal and civil liability in the Philippines:

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) — the “Bouncing Checks Law” — penalizes the mere act of issuing a worthless check, regardless of intent or the underlying transaction (it’s malum prohibitum). A closed account at the time of issuance almost inevitably results in dishonor and triggers statutory presumptions.
Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) targets deceit: using a check to induce someone to part with money or property. A closed account can be potent proof of fraudulent intent, if the check was instrumental in obtaining something.

You can pursue (1) a BP 22 case, (2) an estafa case, (3) both in parallel, and (4) a civil action to collect the money, interest, and damages.

BP 22 in focus

What must be shown (elements)

Making/drawing and issuing a bank check;
For value (to apply on account or for an obligation);
Knowledge at the time of issuance that the account has insufficient funds or is closed; and
Dishonor by the bank for insufficiency of funds, closed account, or a stop-payment without valid cause.

Presumptions that matter

If the check bounces and the issuer fails to pay (or make arrangements with the drawee bank) within five (5) banking days after written notice of dishonor, the law presumes knowledge of insufficiency.

A closed account is independently strong evidence that the issuer knew the check would be dishonored.

Notice is critical: the payee/holder should serve written notice of dishonor and be able to prove receipt (e.g., personal service acknowledgment, registered mail with registry receipt and return card, or reputable courier proof). Without proof of notice and non-payment within five banking days, a BP 22 prosecution is vulnerable.

Penalties and sentencing trends

Statutory penalty: imprisonment (not less than 30 days nor more than 1 year), or a fine (commonly pegged to the amount of the check, often up to double), or both, at the court’s discretion. Courts also award civil liability (amount of the check, interest, damages).
Practical note: In many BP 22 cases, courts lean toward imposing fines instead of jail time, especially for first-time offenders and where circumstances warrant, but this is not guaranteed and remains discretionary.

Defenses commonly raised (and typical weaknesses)

No proper written notice of dishonor (technical but often decisive).
Payment within 5 banking days after receipt of written notice (statutory cure).
Forgery or lack of authority (e.g., signature not the accused’s).
Stop-payment for valid cause (e.g., loss/theft of check with timely notice).
Vices of consent (e.g., check obtained under duress) — fact-heavy and rare.

Not a defense: “The check was issued only as security,” “It was for a prior debt,” or “There was no intent to defraud.” BP 22 does not require deceit.

Venue and jurisdiction (practical guide)

Criminal venue is usually where any essential element occurred: place of issuance/delivery, deposit, or dishonor. First-level courts (Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts) typically try BP 22 cases.

Estafa (Art. 315(2)(d)) when a closed account check is used

When estafa fits (elements, simplified)

The accused issued a check;
To obtain money, goods, or some benefit at the time of issuance (i.e., the check induced the transaction);
The check bounced on presentment;
There was damage or prejudice to the victim.

A closed account can powerfully suggest deceit. However, if the check merely paid a pre-existing debt and did not induce the creditor to part with new value, estafa usually does not lie (though BP 22 may).

Penalties

Penalties for estafa scale with the amount defrauded and can be substantially heavier than BP 22 (including multi-year imprisonment for larger sums), plus civil liability for the amount, interest, and damages.

Typical defenses

No deceit (e.g., the property/money was given before any check; the check did not induce the transfer).
Payment/novation after the fact does not erase criminal liability, but may mitigate penalties and affects civil liability computations.
Good-faith belief in sufficient funds, in narrow circumstances.

Choosing your legal path: BP 22 vs. Estafa (or both)

Factor	BP 22	Estafa (Art. 315(2)(d))
Core theory	Issuing a worthless check (malum prohibitum)	Deceit to obtain money/property
Need to prove intent to defraud?	No	Yes (deceit + damage)
Closed account significance	Strong evidence; triggers presumptions	Strong badge of fraud if it induced the transaction
Typical penalty exposure	Fine and/or up to 1 year	Scales with amount; can be heavier
Key technical pitfall	Failure to prove written notice + 5-banking-day nonpayment	Failure to prove inducement/deceit

Practical strategy:

File BP 22 for a procedurally straightforward case with statutory presumptions.
Add estafa if you can prove you were induced to part with money/property by the check at the time of issuance.
In parallel, pursue civil recovery to secure assets early.

How to recover the amount: step-by-step playbook

1) Gather and preserve evidence

Original check (or bank’s image/certified copy) and bank return stamp/advice (“Account Closed,” “Drawn Against Closed Account,” etc.).
Proof of delivery of the check (invoice, delivery receipt, contract, chat/email trails).
Written notice of dishonor + proof of receipt by the issuer.
Computation of claim: principal, contractual/legal interest, penalties, damages, and attorney’s fees (if contract provides).

2) Send a demand letter (essential for BP 22)

Set out: check details, amount due, bank dishonor for closed account, and a clear 5-banking-day window to pay in full or make arrangements with the drawee bank.
Serve by a method you can later prove (personal service with acknowledgment, registered mail with return card, or reliable courier with tracking).

3) Choose your forum(s)

A. Criminal complaint(s):

BP 22: File a Complaint-Affidavit with the Prosecutor’s Office having venue ties (issuance/delivery/deposit/dishonor). Attach the check, bank dishonor, notice, and proof of notice.
Estafa: File separately (or alongside) if facts support inducement. Emphasize how the check enabled the accused to obtain your money/property.

B. Civil action for collection (with damages):

Sue for sum of money plus interest, penalties, and damages. You may file an independent civil action or rely on civil liability ex delicto in the criminal case.
Consider Small Claims (streamlined, lawyer-optional) if your principal claim falls within the prevailing monetary limit; otherwise, file an ordinary civil action.

C. Provisional remedies (to secure assets early):

Preliminary Attachment (e.g., fraud ground) to tie up defendant assets pending judgment.
Replevin or injunction, if appropriate to the facts.

4) Manage timelines and pitfalls

Act promptly. Criminal and civil claims are subject to prescriptive periods; evidence and witnesses degrade over time.
For BP 22, the written notice + five banking days is not optional — it is the lifeblood of the case.
Keep clean paper trails: registry receipts, return cards, courier logs, and affidavits of service.

5) Execution and collection

After judgment (criminal fine/penalty; civil award), enforce via writ of execution: levy/garnish bank accounts, receivables, vehicles, or other personal/real property.
Explore compromise and structured settlements if immediate assets are limited.

Special issues with closed-account checks

Multiple checks from the same closed account can support separate counts under BP 22 and may strengthen an estafa theory of a scheme to defraud.
Corporate signatories: Assess whether the signer acted in behalf of a corporation and whether personal liability attaches (BP 22 targets the maker/drawer; separate doctrines may assign civil liability to the principal/corporation).
Stop-payment vs. closed account: A stop-payment without valid cause can still violate BP 22; a closed account is usually worse because it strongly implies the issuer knew the account was non-existent at issuance.

Practical templates (checklist level)

Contents of a BP 22 demand letter

Heading: “Written Notice of Dishonor (BP 22)”
Parties and addresses
Check details (bank, branch, number, date, amount, payee)
Bank dishonor reason: “Account Closed”
Demand: Pay in full within 5 banking days of receipt or make arrangements with the drawee bank
Mode of payment (cash/manager’s check/direct bank credit)
Statement that failure will lead to criminal (BP 22) and/or estafa complaints and civil action
Signature + enclosures (copy of check, bank memo)
Service block: indicate mode of service and attach proof later

Evidence packet for filing

Complaint-Affidavit with clear timeline (issuance → delivery → deposit → dishonor → notice → non-payment)
Annexes: check (front/back), bank dishonor slip/advice, demand letter, proof of service/receipt, transaction documents (contract, invoice, DR), and ID/authority documents

Common mistakes that sink cases

No provable written notice or notice sent but no proof of receipt.
Demand letter defects (missing the 5-banking-day cure).
Depositing the check too late without explaining reasonableness (presentment issues can be raised, though BP 22 is flexible on “within a reasonable time”).
Overreliance on estafa without proof of inducement, leading to dismissal when the check only paid an old debt.
Letting prescription run while negotiating informally.

Business process hygiene: avoiding check fraud

Prefer cash-equivalents (manager’s checks, real-time interbank transfers).
If accepting company checks, require board/authority certifications for large deals.
Verify accounts for high-value checks; a quick call to the drawee bank (following bank protocols) can flag closed accounts.
Use delivery-versus-payment structures for goods.
Maintain tight documentation and a tickler system for presentment and notice deadlines.

Bottom line

A check drawn on a closed account is one of the strongest scenarios for liability under BP 22, and it can also support estafa if the check induced the victim to part with value. The hinge for BP 22 is provable written notice and five banking days of non-payment; for estafa, it’s deceit and damage. If you’re the payee, move fast, paper the notice perfectly, choose your forum(s) wisely, and combine criminal prosecution with civil recovery tools to maximize your chances of getting paid.