Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, is one of the most frequently invoked criminal statutes in the Philippines. Enacted on April 3, 1979, it was designed to protect the integrity and stability of the country’s financial system by deterring the pernicious practice of issuing worthless checks and maintaining public confidence in the use of checks as a substitute for cash.
The law is malum prohibitum—the mere issuance of a bad check with knowledge of insufficiency of funds is already punishable, regardless of intent to defraud. This distinguishes it from estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, which requires deceit and damage as essential elements.
Prohibited Acts Under BP 22
Section 1 of BP 22 penalizes two main acts:
Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored for “insufficiency of funds” or “account closed” (or would have been dishonored for the same reason had the drawer, without valid reason, not ordered the bank to stop payment).
Failing to maintain sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank to cover the full amount of the check for a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing on the check, which check is dishonored upon presentment within said period for insufficiency of funds.
The second paragraph covers the situation where the drawer initially had funds but allowed the balance to fall below the check amount within the 90-day period.
Essential Elements of the Offense
For a successful prosecution under BP 22, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:
The accused made, drew, or issued a check to apply on account or for value.
The accused had knowledge at the time of issue that he had no sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank.
The check was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or account closed (or would have been dishonored had there been no stop-payment order without valid cause).
Prima Facie Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficiency of Funds
Section 2 of BP 22 provides a crucial evidentiary presumption:
The fact that the drawer fails to pay the holder the amount of the check or make arrangements for its payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice of dishonor constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at the time of issuance.
This presumption is mandatory. Once the prosecution proves (a) presentment within 90 days from the date of the check, (b) dishonor, and (c) receipt of notice of dishonor by the drawer, and the drawer fails to pay or make arrangements within 5 banking days, knowledge of insufficiency is presumed. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut it.
Important points on notice of dishonor:
Notice may be sent by personal delivery or registered mail to the address printed on the check or the residence/business address of the drawer.
The registry receipt or postmaster’s certification is prima facie proof of receipt.
Oral notice is insufficient; it must be in writing.
The 5-day period is reckoned from actual receipt, not from date of mailing.
Scope of Coverage
BP 22 expressly applies to:
Post-dated checks
Checks issued in payment of pre-existing obligations
Checks issued as security or guarantee (if subsequently dishonored after being deposited or presented)
Memorandum checks (unless clearly indicated as such and accepted only as memorandum)
Checks issued by corporate officers or authorized signatories on behalf of the corporation (both the corporation and the officer may be held liable)
Penalties Under BP 22
Violation of BP 22 is punished by:
Imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year,
OR
A fine of not less than the amount of the check but not more than double the amount (i.e., minimum = face value; maximum = P200,000 if the check is P100,000),
OR
Both imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court.
In practice, the Supreme Court has repeatedly directed trial courts, through various administrative circulars and decisions (notably A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC and subsequent issuances), to impose fines rather than imprisonment except in cases of evident bad faith, malice, or when the penalty of imprisonment is the only way to serve the interests of justice. This policy has been consistently upheld even after the COVID-19 pandemic, with courts preferring fines to avoid jail congestion and for humanitarian reasons.
Civil Liability
The criminal case for BP 22 includes recovery of the face value of the check plus legal interest (currently 6% per annum from judicial or extrajudicial demand). Attorney’s fees and costs of suit may also be awarded.
If the accused is acquitted in the criminal case, the civil action is not automatically dismissed; the complainant may still pursue a separate civil action or refile if previously deemed instituted with the criminal case.
Jurisdiction and Venue
Jurisdiction: Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over BP 22 cases, regardless of the amount of the check (because the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years imprisonment).
Venue: The offense is continuing/transitory in nature. The complaint may be filed in any of the following places (Supreme Court ruling in Nieves v. CA and subsequent cases):
a. Where the check was drawn, made, or issued
b. Where the check was delivered to the payee
c. Where the check was presented for payment and dishonored
This gives the complainant flexibility.
Common Defenses and Grounds for Dismissal/Acquittal
Payment or settlement before filing of the information or during trial (often leads to dismissal via motion to quash or desistance).
Novation of the obligation before the check was deposited.
Failure of consideration (e.g., goods not delivered, services not rendered) — but this is only a valid defense if the payee was informed in writing before the check was deposited that it was being stopped due to failure of consideration.
Lack of valid notice of dishonor or proof of receipt.
Check was issued only as security or guarantee and the principal obligation was not yet due.
Drawer had sufficient funds at the time of issuance and the insufficiency was caused by the bank’s error or unauthorized debiting.
The check was post-dated and deposited before its date (though jurisprudence is now settled that post-dating does not remove it from BP 22 coverage if all other elements are present).
Identity of the accused not sufficiently established (especially in cases of forged signatures).
Distinction Between BP 22 and Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d), RPC
| Aspect | BP 22 | Estafa (Art. 315(2)(d)) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Malum prohibitum | Malum in se |
| Intent required | Knowledge of insufficiency | Deceit and intent to defraud |
| Damage | Not required | Required |
| Post-dating | Expressly covered | Must be issued as if with sufficient funds |
| Presumption of deceit | From failure to pay within 5 days | None |
| Penalty | 30 days to 1 year or fine up to double | Prision correccional to prision mayor (higher) |
| Can both be charged? | Yes (separate offenses) | Yes |
A single check can give rise to both violations, and the accused may be convicted of both in separate cases (separate trials required if both are charged).
Key Supreme Court Doctrines on BP 22
Lozano v. Martinez (1986): Upheld the constitutionality of BP 22.
People v. Laggui (1998): Check issued as security is covered if deposited.
Wong v. CA (2001): Written notice of dishonor is mandatory.
Lao v. CA (2003): Account-closed checks are covered.
Bautista v. CA (2004): Oral stop-payment order to the bank does not exempt the drawer if there was no valid cause.
Tan v. Philippine Commercial International Bank (2007): The 90-day presentment period is mandatory for the prima facie presumption to apply.
Resterio v. People (2019): Reaffirmed preference for fine over imprisonment.
Various 2020–2024 rulings: Continued liberal application of the policy favoring fines and allowing compounding/settlement even at the appellate stage.
Current Status (as of December 2025)
BP 22 remains fully in force. Attempts to decriminalize or repeal it (notably House Bill No. 7650 in the 18th Congress and subsequent proposals) have not prospered. The Supreme Court continues to issue reminders to lower courts to impose fines rather than imprisonment except in exceptional circumstances.
In practice, the overwhelming majority of BP 22 cases are resolved through mediation, compromise agreements, or payment before or during trial. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Court Administrator actively encourage alternative dispute resolution for these cases.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 remains a potent weapon in commercial transactions, ensuring that the issuance of checks is not taken lightly and that the financial system retains the trust of the public. While often criticized for being too harsh on small debtors, its continued enforcement underscores the Philippines’ policy of protecting the sanctity of negotiable instruments.