In the Philippine legal landscape, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22)—popularly known as the "Bouncing Checks Law"—is one of the most litigated special penal laws. While the act of issuing a check that is subsequently dishonored seems straightforward, the prosecution of these cases often collapses on a single, critical technicality: The Notice of Dishonor and Proof of Receipt.
Under BP 22, the "gravamen" (essence) of the offense is the issuance of a check knowing that at the time of issue, there are no sufficient funds. Since the law cannot peer into the mind of the drawer, it relies on a legal presumption.
1. The Legal Presumption of Knowledge
Section 2 of BP 22 creates a prima facie presumption that the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds if:
- The check is presented within 90 days from its date.
- The check is dishonored by the bank.
- The drawer fails to pay the amount due or make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days after receiving a written notice of dishonor.
Without this written notice and proof that the drawer received it, the prosecution cannot prove "knowledge," and the criminal case will likely fail.
2. Requirements of a Valid Demand Letter
A mere phone call, a text message, or a verbal "hey, your check bounced" is legally insufficient for a criminal conviction under BP 22. The demand must meet specific criteria:
- Written Form: It must be a formal letter of demand or notice of dishonor.
- Specific Amount: It must clearly state the amount of the dishonored check.
- The 5-Day Grace Period: It must explicitly or implicitly give the drawer five banking days from receipt to settle the obligation.
- Identification of the Check: It should detail the check number, date, and the reason for dishonor (e.g., DAIF - Drawn Against Insufficient Funds).
3. The "Holy Grail" of BP 22: Proof of Receipt
In the eyes of the Supreme Court (notably in cases like San Mateo v. People and Suarez v. People), it is not enough to prove that a demand letter was sent. The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the drawer actually received it.
Methods of Service and Their Proof
| Method of Service | Required Proof for Court |
|---|---|
| Personal Service | A copy of the letter bearing the stamped "Received" mark, the printed name of the recipient, their signature, and the date of receipt. |
| Registered Mail | The Registry Receipt (issued by the Post Office when sending) AND the Registry Return Card (the pink card signed by the recipient). |
| Courier (LBC/Grab/etc.) | A certification from the courier or a delivery status report specifically identifying the person who received the document. |
The "Registry Return Card" Pitfall
A common mistake is presenting only the Registry Receipt. The Supreme Court has ruled that a Registry Receipt is only proof of mailing, not receipt. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must present the Registry Return Card and, if the signature is challenged, authenticate that signature.
4. Who Must Sign the Receipt?
The law is strict: the notice must be received by the issuer of the check.
- Authorized Agents: If a secretary or family member signs the return card, the prosecution must prove that said person was authorized by the issuer to receive such specific legal notices.
- Denial of Signature: If the accused denies the signature on the return card, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove its authenticity, often requiring a witness who saw the signing or a handwriting expert.
5. Why This Matters for the Defense
If the prosecution fails to present the Registry Return Card or a witness to testify that the drawer personally received the demand, the "presumption of knowledge" never arises. Even if the check undeniably bounced, the accused can be acquitted of the criminal aspect of the case, though they will still be held civilly liable for the value of the check.
Summary Note: In BP 22, "Sending is not Receiving." If you cannot prove the drawer held that letter in their hand (or someone authorized did), you do not have a criminal case.
Would you like me to draft a template for a formal BP 22 Demand Letter that complies with these Philippine Jurisprudence requirements?