The Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) A 360-degree guide to the statute, procedure, jurisprudence, and reform debates (Philippine setting, updated to May 25 2025)
1. Legislative backdrop and policy purpose
B.P. 22 was enacted on June 29 1979 at a time when post-dated checks had become the informal “credit card” of Philippine commerce. Congress criminalised the mere issuance of a check that bounces to guarantee the stability of negotiable instruments and “preserve the integrity of the banking system” — even where no estafa (fraud) is proved. (Inquirer Business)
2. Statutory core
Section 1 penalises any person who makes, draws, or issues a check (a) to apply on account or for value (b) which is dishonoured within 90 days from its date and (c) who, after written notice of dishonor, fails to pay or arrange payment within five banking days. Penalties are:
- imprisonment – 30 days to 1 year
- or fine – double the check amount (ceiling ₱200 000)
- or both, at judicial discretion. (E-Library, Chan Robles Virtual Law Library)
3. Nature of the offence
BP 22 is malum prohibitum: the act is punishable because the law says so, independent of intent to defraud or the validity of the underlying transaction. (RESPICIO & CO.)
4. Elements unpacked
| Element | What the prosecution must show | Key rulings / notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Making/drawing/issuing | Accused actually signed the check. Corporate liability attaches only to the signatory; non-signing officers are liable only if conspiracy is proved. (RESPICIO & CO.) | |
| 2. Check for account or value | Includes post-dated checks for loans, goods, or services. Lack of consideration is not a defence. | |
| 3. Knowledge of insufficiency | Presumed when the bank dishonours a check issued ≤ 90 days earlier and the drawer gets written notice but fails to pay in 5 banking days. Oral notice is insufficient. (Supreme Court of the Philippines, Respicio & Co.) | |
| 4. Dishonor by drawee bank | Must present check within 90 days; “stop-payment” orders without valid cause are treated as dishonor. (Inquirer Business) |
Practical tip – Attach to the complaint the bank’s dishonor slip and the served written demand with proof of receipt; without them, prosecution almost always fails.
5. Sentencing trends: SC Administrative Circulars 12-2000 & 13-2001
The Supreme Court urged trial courts to prefer fines over imprisonment where good faith or clear mistake appears, but clarified that jail remains available “when circumstances warrant.” (Scribd, Inquirer Business)
Rule of thumb (2025): first-time, fully-restituted offenders usually get fines; recidivists or bad-faith drawers still risk jail.
6. Procedure, venue & prescription
- Venue – where the check was drawn or where it was dishonoured (drawee bank).
- Summary procedure / Expedited Rules – Since 2022, BP 22 cases in first-level courts follow A.M. No. 22-06-02-SC: one-day mediation, single-day testimony, decision within 15 days. (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
- Prescriptive period – 4 years (special law with max penalty ≤ 1 year). Period starts on receipt of written notice, and after 15 April 2003 is tolled only when the information is filed in court, not at the prosecutor’s office. (HG Law, RESPICIO & CO.)
7. Common defences (and why most fail)
- No written notice of dishonor – still the #1 winning defence; absence is fatal. (Respicio & Co.)
- Payment within 5 days – an absolute bar; proof must be clear.
- Check presented beyond 90 days – nullifies statutory presumption.
- Prescription – file after 4 years, case is dismissible motu proprio.
- Not the signatory / forged signature – complete defence if proven.
- Compromise after filing – does not extinguish criminal liability, but courts almost always reduce the penalty to a fine upon full restitution.
8. Corporate checks & officer liability
Liability is personal to the signatory; the corporation itself is not criminally prosecutable, though it remains civilly liable. Acquittal of the officer extinguishes civil liability unless bad-faith evidence pierces the corporate veil. (E-Library, Batas.org)
9. Civil aspect & alternative recourse
The payee may (a) reserve a separate civil action, (b) file small-claims (≤ ₱1 M), or (c) rely on implied civil liability in the criminal case. Rule 111, Sec. 1(b) bars waiver of the civil action once BP 22 is filed. (Respicio & Co.)
10. BP 22 vs. Estafa (Art. 315 §2[d] RPC)
| Feature | BP 22 | Estafa by post-dated check |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Malum prohibitum | Malum in se (deceit) |
| Injury / damage | Irrelevant | Essential element |
| Notice of dishonor | Mandatory written notice (to raise presumption) | Helpful but not indispensable |
| Penalty range (2025) | 30 days – 1 year or fine ≤ ₱200 k | Up to 20 years if damage ≥ ₱2.2 M (as adjusted by RA 10951) |
| Settlement effect | May mitigate penalty but not erase liability | Full restitution before prosecution negates estafa |
11. Landmark & recent jurisprudence (2017-2025 snapshot)
- King v. People (1999) – anchored the actual written notice doctrine.
- People v. Pangilinan (2012) – clarified 4-year prescription. (HG Law)
- Go v. Dimagiba (2005) – circulars on fines are rules of preference, not amendment. (Inquirer Business)
- SC Adm. Circ. 12-2000 / 13-2001 – codified preference for fines. (Chan Robles Virtual Law Library)
- People v. Nieves (G.R. 261062, 2023) – reiterated written notice rule; oral notice insufficient. (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
- Republic v. Desierto (2023) – prescription tolled only by court filing for acts after 15 Apr 2003. (RESPICIO & CO.)
12. Reform bills and de-criminalisation debate
Every Congress since 2010 has seen bills (e.g., Senate Bill 807; House drafts under “BOUNCING CHECK (BP 22) AMENDMENTS”) proposing to decriminalise or downgrade BP 22 to a purely civil infraction, citing jail congestion and financial-inclusion goals. None has become law as of May 2025, so BP 22 remains fully in force. (Senate Legislative Document Repository, RESPICIO & CO.)
13. Compliance checklist for businesses & individuals
- Accept checks only from verified accounts.
- Present checks within 30 days (best practice) to preserve remedies.
- Send a dated, demand letter by personal service, registered mail, or courier; keep proof of receipt.
- Calendar the 5-bank-day grace period before filing a complaint.
- Evaluate settlement offers – fines alone can still be hefty (double the amount).
14. For complainants: model timeline
| Day | Action |
|---|---|
| 0 | Check dishonoured; obtain bank “DAIF/DAUD” memo. |
| 1-2 | Draft & serve written notice of dishonor/demand to pay. |
| 7 | If no payment after five banking days, prepare complaint-affidavit with exhibits. |
| 15 | File with Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (note: prescription still running). |
| + | Once information is filed in court, summary procedure/expedited rules apply. |
15. Key take-aways
- BP 22 is not about deceit but about making good on the negotiable instrument you issued.
- Written notice of dishonor and the 5-day grace period lie at the heart of both prosecution and defence.
- Penalties today are predominantly fines, but jail remains a credible threat, particularly for serial offenders or those who ignore settlement opportunities.
- Prescription and procedural shortcuts introduced in 2022 (Expedited Rules) now mean bouncing-check cases can be resolved in months, not years.
- De-criminalisation remains a live policy issue, yet until enacted, every dishonoured check still carries potential criminal, civil, and reputational consequences.
This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for personalised legal advice. For specific concerns, consult Philippine counsel.