Introduction

In the Philippines, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, was enacted in 1979 to discourage the issuance of worthless checks and maintain confidence in the banking system. This law criminalizes the act of issuing checks that bounce due to insufficient funds or lack of credit arrangements. Over the years, it has been a common basis for legal disputes, particularly in commercial transactions, loans, and business dealings. Violators face both criminal and civil liabilities, which can include fines, imprisonment, and restitution.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of BP 22, focusing on key questions such as whether arrest is possible and the available options when a payee rejects a reasonable settlement offer. It draws from the law's provisions, relevant jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, and practical considerations in Philippine legal practice. While BP 22 remains a potent tool for creditors, it also offers defenses and remedies for drawers (issuers) of checks, emphasizing the balance between accountability and fairness.

The Provisions of BP 22

BP 22 prohibits two main acts:

Making or Drawing and Issuing a Check Knowing It Lacks Sufficient Funds: This occurs when a person issues a check in payment of an obligation, knowing at the time of issuance that they do not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank to cover the full amount. If the check is dishonored upon presentment within 90 days from the date on the check, it constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency.
Failing to Maintain Sufficient Funds After Issuance: Even if funds were initially sufficient, if the drawer fails to keep enough funds or credit in the account for at least 90 days after issuance, and the check bounces upon presentment, this is also punishable.

The law applies to postdated checks as well, which are commonly used in the Philippines for installment payments or loans. However, checks issued as mere guarantees or in jest are not covered, provided they were not intended as payment for an existing obligation.

Elements of the Offense

For a successful prosecution under BP 22, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:

The accused made, drew, and issued a check to apply on account or for value.
The accused knew at the time of issuance that they lacked sufficient funds or credit.
The check was dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had the drawer not ordered the bank to stop payment without valid cause.

Prima facie evidence of knowledge arises if the drawer receives notice of dishonor and fails to pay or make arrangements for payment within five banking days. This shifts the burden to the drawer to prove lack of knowledge or other defenses.

Penalties Under BP 22

Upon conviction, penalties include:

Imprisonment ranging from 30 days to one year, or
A fine equivalent to double the amount of the check (but not less than ₱1,500 nor more than ₱200,000), or
Both imprisonment and fine, at the court's discretion.

In addition to criminal penalties, the court may order the payment of the check's face value plus interest, damages, and litigation costs as civil liability. Multiple checks can lead to multiple counts, potentially resulting in cumulative sentences.

The law was amended by Republic Act No. 10951 in 2017, which adjusted penalties for property-related crimes, including BP 22, to reflect inflation. For checks below certain thresholds, penalties are scaled accordingly, but the core structure remains.

Can You Be Arrested for BP 22 Violations?

Yes, arrest is possible in BP 22 cases, but it is not automatic and depends on the stage of proceedings:

Pre-Trial Arrest

Warrant of Arrest: Upon filing of a complaint and preliminary investigation by the prosecutor, if probable cause is found, the court may issue a warrant of arrest. This is common in metropolitan areas like Manila, where BP 22 cases are handled by Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs).
No Bail for Minor Offenses: For offenses punishable by imprisonment of less than six months (possible in low-amount checks), bail may not be required, but arrest can still occur if the court deems it necessary.
Exceptions: Under the Rules of Court, arrest warrants may be quashed if the accused posts bail or if the case is eligible for summary procedure. In practice, many accused surrender voluntarily or negotiate settlements before arrest.

During Trial or Post-Conviction

If convicted and the sentence includes imprisonment, the accused can be detained immediately unless bail is granted pending appeal.
The Supreme Court has ruled in cases like People v. Nitafan (1986) that BP 22 is a crime against public order, not merely a private offense, so it cannot be dismissed solely on the complainant's desistance without court approval.

Arrest is more likely in cases involving large amounts or repeat offenders. However, the Philippine justice system is overburdened, and many BP 22 cases are resolved through plea bargaining or settlements, reducing the incidence of actual arrests.

Options If the Payee Refuses a Reasonable Settlement

Settlement is encouraged under Philippine law, as BP 22 cases often stem from civil debts. However, if the payee (complainant) refuses a reasonable offer—such as full payment of the check amount plus interest and costs—the drawer has several options:

1. Pre-Filing Negotiation and Payment

Before a complaint is filed, the drawer can pay the check amount directly to the payee or deposit it with the drawee bank. This extinguishes criminal liability if done within five banking days of notice of dishonor.
If refused, the drawer can consign the payment to the court (consignation under Civil Code Article 1256), which may serve as a defense.

2. During Preliminary Investigation

At the prosecutor's office, the parties can engage in mediation. If settlement fails, the drawer can submit a counter-affidavit raising defenses like lack of knowledge, novation (replacement of obligation), or that the check was not issued for value.
If the prosecutor finds no probable cause, the case is dismissed without reaching court.

3. Court-Ordered Mediation

Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule and court-annexed mediation, BP 22 cases (as bailable offenses) are referred to mediation. A compromise agreement can lead to case dismissal.
If the payee refuses, the case proceeds to trial, but the court may consider the drawer's good faith in sentencing.

4. Defenses During Trial

Lack of Knowledge: Prove that the insufficiency was due to unforeseen circumstances, like bank error or force majeure.
No Intent to Defraud: If the check was issued as security (not payment), it may not fall under BP 22, per Lozano v. Martinez (1986).
Payment or Novation: Evidence of subsequent payment or restructuring of the debt can mitigate or extinguish liability.
Prescription: Criminal actions prescribe after four years from the date the check could have been prosecuted.
Estafa vs. BP 22: If deceit is involved, the case might be absorbed into estafa under the Revised Penal Code, but BP 22 is distinct and can be prosecuted separately.

5. Plea Bargaining

Under Supreme Court guidelines (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC), plea bargaining is allowed for BP 22, where the accused can plead guilty to a lesser offense or agree to a fine-only penalty.

6. Appeal and Higher Remedies

If convicted, appeal to the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court. Grounds include errors in finding guilt or excessive penalties.
Probation may be available for first-time offenders with sentences under six years, allowing community service instead of jail.

7. Administrative and Civil Remedies

File a counterclaim for damages if the complaint is malicious (e.g., under Article 26 of the Civil Code for abuse of rights).
Seek annulment of the obligation if it was usurious or illegal.

In jurisprudence like Nierras v. Dacuycuy (1990), the Supreme Court emphasized that BP 22 is not meant to coerce payment but to punish the act of issuing bad checks. Thus, even if settlement is refused, courts may lean toward fines over imprisonment for minor cases.

Civil Aspects and Recovery

BP 22 cases include an integrated civil action for recovery. The payee can claim the check amount, legal interest (6% per annum post-2013), moral/exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. If the criminal case is dismissed, the civil claim can proceed independently.

Recent Developments and Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has refined BP 22 application:

In Wong v. Court of Appeals (2001), it clarified that corporate officers can be held liable if they personally issued the check.
A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (2013) mandates summary procedure for BP 22, speeding up trials.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bayanihan Acts temporarily suspended certain check-related obligations, but BP 22 enforcement resumed fully.

Amendments under RA 10951 increased fine thresholds, making penalties more proportional.

Prevention and Best Practices

To avoid BP 22 issues:

Ensure sufficient funds before issuing checks.
Use electronic payments or manager's checks for security.
Document agreements clearly to avoid disputes.
If facing insufficiency, communicate promptly with the payee.

For payees, present checks timely and consider settlements to avoid prolonged litigation.

Conclusion

BP 22 serves as a deterrent against bouncing checks, with potential for arrest and imprisonment, but it also provides multiple avenues for resolution, even if settlement is refused. The law balances creditor protection with debtor rights, encouraging good faith negotiations. Individuals facing BP 22 charges should consult a lawyer immediately to explore defenses and options, as outcomes depend on specific facts and evidence. While the law is strict, Philippine courts often prioritize rehabilitation over punishment in non-malicious cases.