I. Introduction

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), commonly called the Bouncing Checks Law, is a special penal statute that criminalizes the issuance of worthless checks—checks that are later dishonored for lack of funds or credit, or because payment was stopped without valid cause.

Enacted in 1979, BP 22 was designed to protect the banking system and commercial transactions, not merely to enforce payment of debts. The law encourages confidence in the use of checks as substitutes for cash: if people could issue checks with impunity despite having no funds, the usefulness of checks as instruments of credit and payment would collapse.

BP 22 has since become one of the most commonly invoked special penal laws in the Philippines, especially in commercial, retail, and lending transactions.

II. Statutory Framework of BP 22

A. Core Prohibition (Section 1)

Section 1 of BP 22 punishes:

Any person who makes or draws and issues a 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, and the check is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

Key points:

“Any person” – applies to natural persons; corporations cannot be imprisoned, so criminal liability attaches to the individual who actually issued/signed the check.
“Makes or draws and issues” – the act covers more than mere signing; it includes delivery to another, creating a legitimate expectation of payment.
“To apply on account or for value” – the check must be issued:
- As payment of an existing obligation, or
- As consideration for a present transaction (e.g., purchase, loan, service).
Knowledge of insufficiency – required by the text, but the law later creates a statutory presumption of such knowledge (discussed below).
Dishonor for insufficiency of funds or credit – the check is returned unpaid, or would be unpaid if not for a stop-payment order given without valid cause.

Each check constitutes a separate offense.

B. Prima Facie Evidence (Section 2)

Section 2 establishes presumptions that greatly simplify prosecution:

The mere issuance of a check, later dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit, becomes prima facie evidence that:
1. The check was issued for value or on account, and
2. The drawer knew of the insufficiency of funds or credit at the time of issuance,

Provided that:

The check is presented to the bank within ninety (90) days from its date; and
The drawer fails to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days from receipt of written notice of dishonor.

These conditions are crucial. In practice:

Presentment beyond 90 days removes the presumption of knowledge but does not necessarily decriminalize the act; however, jurisprudence generally treats the 90-day presentment and 5-banking-day grace period as effectively part of the elements, because without them the presumption and the offense are hard to sustain.
The 5-day grace period is a last chance for the issuer to avoid criminal liability by making good on the check or arranging payment.

C. Duty of the Drawee Bank (Section 3)

The law requires the drawee bank to:

Indicate in writing the reason for dishonor when a check is not paid.
The notation (e.g., “Insufficient Funds,” “Account Closed,” “Stop Payment”) is important evidence in BP 22 cases.

This written notation supports the prosecution’s proof of dishonor and of the ground for dishonor.

D. Meaning of “Credit” (Section 4)

“Credit” in BP 22 includes:

An arrangement with the bank whereby the drawer is allowed to issue checks in excess of the deposit balance (e.g., overdraft line), or
Any other legitimate credit accommodation (e.g., standby credit, line of credit) documented with the bank.

Thus, a person may avoid violation if they had a valid credit facility covering the check at the time of issuance.

E. Relation to Other Laws (Section 5)

Section 5 clarifies that:

Prosecution under BP 22 does not bar prosecution under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), particularly estafa under Article 315(2)(d), if the facts also constitute that offense.
The same check may be the subject of both a BP 22 case and an estafa case, because they punish different wrongs:
- BP 22: issuance of a worthless check (malum prohibitum).
- Estafa: deceit and damage (malum in se).

F. Penalties

Under BP 22:

Imprisonment: Not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year;
Fine: At least the amount of the check but not more than double its amount, subject to a statutory cap;
Courts may impose either fine or imprisonment, or both, at their discretion.

The Supreme Court, via administrative circulars, has encouraged lower courts to prefer fines over imprisonment in appropriate cases, especially where the primary aim is to secure payment rather than incarceration. However, courts retain the authority to impose imprisonment when circumstances warrant (e.g., repeated offenses, large amounts, bad faith).

III. Nature of the Offense

A. Malum Prohibitum

BP 22 is generally considered a malum prohibitum statute:

Criminal intent (mens rea) or deceit is not essential; what matters is the commission of the prohibited act under the conditions set by law.
The law punishes the act to protect public interest in commercial stability, not primarily to punish moral wrongdoing.

Thus, defenses like “I did not intend to defraud” are usually not controlling in BP 22 cases.

B. Public Policy Rationale

Key policy objectives:

Maintain confidence in banking and checks as substitutes for cash.
Prevent abuse of credit instruments by unscrupulous drawers.
Promote commercial stability and protect small traders, lenders, and consumers who rely on checks in everyday transactions.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of BP 22, ruling that it is not an unconstitutional imprisonment for debt. The offense is not the failure to pay a debt but the act of issuing a worthless check that undermines public confidence.

IV. Elements of the Crime

From the statute and jurisprudence, the usual formulation of the elements is:

The accused makes, draws, and issues a check;
The check is issued to apply on account or for value;
The accused knows at the time of issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank;
The check is presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon;
The check is dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been so dishonored for the same reason had the drawer not, without valid cause, ordered a stop-payment; and
The accused fails to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving written notice of dishonor.

Failure to prove any of these elements is typically fatal to prosecution.

V. Procedural and Jurisdictional Aspects

A. Where to File

BP 22 cases fall under the jurisdiction of the first-level courts:

Municipal Trial Courts (MTC),
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC),
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC),

depending on the area.

The offense is considered to have been committed in any of the places where any essential element occurred, such as:

Where the check was drawn (place of issuance),
Where it was delivered to the payee,
Where it was presented for payment, or
Where it was dishonored.

Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases, so the information (charging document) must correctly identify a proper venue.

B. Form of Action and Parties

A BP 22 case is initiated through a criminal complaint or information.
The People of the Philippines is the plaintiff; the payee (or holder) is the private complainant, but the criminal action is public in nature.
The private complainant may also claim civil liability in the same criminal case.

C. Prescription

As a special law offense with relatively light penalties, BP 22 violations have a limited prescriptive period. While the exact computation depends on the applicable general rule on prescription of offenses under special laws, in practice:

Prescription is typically counted from the date of last essential act, generally considered to be the lapse of the 5-banking-day grace period after receipt of written notice of dishonor.

Failure to file the case within the prescriptive period can be a ground for dismissal.

VI. Notice of Dishonor

A. Written Notice as a Crucial Element

The requirement of written notice of dishonor is critical.

The prosecution must prove that the drawer actually received written notice that the check had been dishonored.
Oral notice, or mere knowledge from other sources (like a phone call or informal conversation), is generally not enough to trigger the 5-banking-day grace period for purposes of criminal liability.

B. Forms of Proof

Common evidence to prove notice:

Demand letter addressed to the accused, stating:
- Details of the check(s),
- Dishonor by the bank,
- Demand for payment within 5 banking days.
Registry receipts, return cards, or courier service documentation:
- To show that the demand letter was sent to and received by the accused.
Testimony of the person who sent or delivered the notice.

If the prosecution cannot show that written notice was received, courts generally acquit, because the 5-day grace period never legally commenced.

VII. Comparison with Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) RPC

A. Estafa by Postdated or Bouncing Check

Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code punishes estafa committed by:

Issuing a postdated or undated check in payment of an obligation, when at the time of issuance, the drawer has no funds or insufficient funds in the bank, and the victim suffers damage due to reliance on the check, which was used as a means of deceit.

B. Distinctions between BP 22 and Estafa

Although both involve bouncing checks, crucial differences exist:

Nature of Offense
- BP 22: Malum prohibitum; focuses on the act of issuing a worthless check.
- Estafa: Malum in se; requires deceit and damage.
Requisite Mental State
- BP 22: Knowledge of insufficiency is presumed once the statutory conditions are met; intent to defraud not required.
- Estafa: Must prove deceit and reliance thereon, causing prejudice.
Civil Liability
- BP 22: Civil liability is anchored on the underlying obligation, not the check itself.
- Estafa: Civil liability is part of the criminal offense (restitution of damage).
Double Jeopardy
- A person may be prosecuted under both laws for the same transaction because the elements differ, but cannot be punished twice for the same offense. Jurisprudence treats them as distinct crimes.

VIII. Common Defenses in BP 22 Cases

While the offense is malum prohibitum, there are still several legal and factual defenses:

A. No Issuance “For Value or On Account”

If the check was:

Issued as a guarantee or for security only (in some cases),
Issued without consideration,
Merely left signed and later misused,

the accused may argue that it was not issued “to apply on account or for value” as required by BP 22.

Courts will closely examine the surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence.

B. Absence of Insufficiency of Funds or Credit

If at the time of issuance:

The accused had sufficient funds, or
Had a valid credit line covering the check,

then one of the essential elements is missing.

Bank records are crucial to prove or disprove this.

C. Lack of Proper Presentment (90-Day Rule)

If the check:

Was not presented within 90 days from its date, the statutory presumption of knowledge of insufficiency may not arise.

Courts have sometimes treated late presentment as fatal to the prosecution’s case, particularly where the presumption is central.

D. No Written Notice of Dishonor / No Proof of Receipt

As noted, absence of proof that the accused received written notice of dishonor is a very strong defense.

If the prosecution cannot show delivery or receipt, the 5-banking-day period never starts, and one element of the offense fails.

E. Payment or Arrangement within the 5-Banking-Day Period

If the drawer, after receiving written notice, within five banking days:

Pays the check amount in full, or
Makes sufficient and acceptable arrangements for payment,

criminal liability under BP 22 does not attach.

This is a built-in “safe harbor” provision.

F. Forgery or Unauthorized Use

If the accused:

Did not sign the check,
Was a victim of forgery, or
Had checks stolen and fraudulently used,

they may raise lack of participation in issuing the check as a complete defense.

G. Jurisdictional and Procedural Defects

Wrong venue,
Defective or insufficient information,
Prescription,

may also be grounds for dismissal.

IX. Corporate Checks and Liability of Officers

In many cases, checks are drawn against corporate accounts.

The corporation may be the account holder, but BP 22 imposes liability on the natural person who makes, draws, and issues the check—typically the signatory.
Corporate officers (e.g., president, treasurer, authorized signatory) may thus be personally liable if they knowingly issued a bouncing corporate check.
Mere designation as an officer is not enough; prosecution must show actual participation in issuing the check.

X. Civil Liability and Effects of Payment

A. Civil Liability

Civil liability in BP 22 cases typically arises from:

The underlying obligation (e.g., loan, sale of goods/services),
Possible damages (moral, exemplary) and attorney’s fees depending on proof of injury and bad faith.

The check itself is normally evidence of debt, not the source of the obligation.

B. Payment Before or After Filing

Payment before filing:
- May deter the filing of a case (since complainants often want payment, not punishment).
- Can be argued as negating damage and possibly bad faith, but does not automatically erase the offense if all elements already occurred.
Payment after filing or during trial:
- Does not extinguish criminal liability, because BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, already completed.
- However, it may affect:
  - The court’s appreciation of penalties (possibly fine instead of imprisonment), and
  - The civil aspect (extinguishing or reducing civil liability).
Payment after conviction:
- Typically satisfies civil liability and may be considered in probation or in reducing the imposition of imprisonment.

XI. Administrative and Policy Developments

Over the years, the Supreme Court has issued administrative circulars dealing with:

Preference for fine-only penalties where appropriate;
Encouraging settlement and payment of obligations;
Guidelines for sentencing in BP 22 cases.

These do not repeal or amend the law but guide lower courts on how to exercise sentencing discretion, balancing:

The need to deter abuse of checks, and
The objective of securing payment instead of clogging jails with debtors who could instead be compelled to pay.

XII. Practical Implications

A. For Consumers and Borrowers

Issuing a check when you are not sure you have funds (or credit) is risky not just commercially, but criminally.
Using postdated checks as mere guarantees is common practice, but courts may still treat them as issued “for value,” depending on the context.
Always ensure:
- Checks are backed by actual funds or a confirmed credit line;
- You can cover the check within the 90-day window and 5-banking-day grace period if problems arise.

B. For Merchants, Lenders, and Service Providers

Accepting checks as payment is safer when:
- You promptly deposit or present the checks within the 90-day period.
- You maintain good documentation:
  - Contracts or invoices,
  - Copies of checks,
  - Dishonor slips,
  - Demand letters and proof of receipt.
Quick and proper documentation strengthens both civil and criminal remedies.

C. For Banks

Banks must:

Properly note the reason for dishonor on checks and return them accordingly.
Maintain clear records that can be used as evidence.
Act consistently with banking regulations and the requirements of BP 22.

XIII. Conclusion and Caution

BP 22 is a powerful and often harsh instrument of public policy designed to protect the integrity of checks and the banking system. Its key features include:

Criminalization of issuing checks without sufficient funds or credit;
Statutory presumptions based on dishonor, 90-day presentment, and failure to pay within 5 banking days after written notice;
A focus on the act itself, irrespective of actual intent to defraud;
Coexistence with estafa and civil actions based on the underlying obligation.

Because the facts of each case (how the check was issued, whether notice was received, what arrangements were made, when the check was presented, etc.) can drastically affect liability, anyone facing or contemplating action under BP 22 should carefully review the documents and circumstances and, for real-world disputes, seek advice from a Philippine lawyer who can apply these principles to the specific situation.