1) What BP 22 is—and what it is not

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) penalizes the act of issuing a check that is later dishonored due to insufficient funds/credit, or dishonored because of a stop-payment order without a valid reason when it would otherwise have bounced for insufficiency. It is commonly called the “Bouncing Checks Law.”

Key points at a glance:

BP 22 is a criminal case prosecuted in the name of People of the Philippines, even if it started from a private dispute.
It is generally treated as malum prohibitum: intent to defraud is not required; what matters are the statutory elements.
Each dishonored check is typically a separate offense (multiple checks = multiple possible counts/informations).
BP 22 is often filed alongside or instead of civil collection (and sometimes alongside estafa under the Revised Penal Code, depending on the facts—see Section 10).

2) What counts as a “bouncing check”

A check may “bounce” (be dishonored) for many reasons, but BP 22 focuses on dishonor that relates to funds/credit:

Common BP 22-related reasons for dishonor include:

“DAIF” / Drawn Against Insufficient Funds
Insufficient funds / Insufficient credit
Account closed (often treated as functionally equivalent to insufficiency in practice because it signals no available funds/credit)
Stop payment ordered without a valid reason, where the check would have been dishonored for insufficiency if not stopped

Dishonor for purely technical/other reasons (examples: irregular signature, postdated presented too early, stale check, incomplete details, altered check) may still be relevant to disputes, but BP 22 liability depends on whether the prosecution can prove the required elements (and whether the dishonor is tied to insufficiency/credit or stop-payment without valid reason).

3) The legal elements of BP 22 (what the prosecution must prove)

In simplified form, BP 22 typically requires proof of:

Making, drawing, and issuance of a check
- “Issuance” is commonly understood as delivery of the check to another person for value.
The check was issued to apply on account or for value
- “For value” is broad. Even checks issued as security/guarantee are frequently litigated under BP 22 because they are still connected to an underlying obligation.
Knowledge of insufficient funds/credit at the time of issuance
- This is often the most contested element.
The check is dishonored upon presentment by the drawee bank
- Presentment timing matters (see the 90-day presumption below).

The 90-day presentment and the 5-banking-day payment window (presumption mechanics)

BP 22 contains a practical evidentiary shortcut:

If the check is presented within 90 days from its date and is dishonored for insufficiency/credit, this supports a prima facie presumption that the drawer knew of the insufficiency—but the presumption is tied to notice of dishonor and the opportunity to make good.
After the drawer receives notice of dishonor, the drawer is typically given five (5) banking days to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for payment. Failure to do so is what commonly triggers or strengthens the presumption of knowledge.

Important nuance: In practice, proper notice of dishonor is a frequent battleground. If notice is not proven (or is defective), the prosecution may lose the benefit of presumptions and may need other proof of knowledge—often making the case harder to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

4) Notice of dishonor vs. demand letters: why the paper trail matters

People often conflate these documents:

Bank dishonor slip / return memo: the bank’s written reason for dishonor.
Notice of dishonor: communication to the drawer that the check was dishonored. In litigation, the issue is often proof that the drawer actually received notice (or refused/evaded receipt in a way treated as equivalent).
Demand letter: a creditor’s formal demand to pay. A demand letter may also function as notice of dishonor if it clearly states the check was dishonored and provides details, but what matters is what can be proven in court.

Best evidence for notice/receipt commonly includes:

Personal service with acknowledgment
Registered mail with supporting postal documentation and a signed return card (or equivalent proof of receipt/refusal)
Credible testimony on service and receipt

5) The usual life cycle of a BP 22 case (from check bounce to court)

A common sequence looks like this:

Check is issued and delivered.
Check is deposited/presented; bank dishonors it.
Payee sends notice of dishonor/demand.
If not resolved, payee files a complaint (often with the prosecutor’s office; sometimes directly with court depending on procedural posture).
Prosecutor issues a subpoena to the respondent (accused-to-be) to submit a counter-affidavit.
Prosecutor resolves probable cause; if found, an Information is filed in court.
Court evaluates probable cause; issues summons (often) or warrant (depending on circumstances).
Arraignment, pre-trial, trial, judgment, and (if convicted) sentencing/probation issues.

6) Understanding the subpoena you received (and why the source matters)

“Subpoena” in BP 22 contexts usually comes from one of two places:

A) Prosecutor’s subpoena (most common early-stage subpoena)

This is typically served during preliminary investigation (or a similar evaluation process), requiring the respondent to submit:

Counter-affidavit
Supporting evidence/attachments
Possible appearance at a clarificatory hearing (if scheduled)

Typical deadline: often 10 days from receipt to submit the counter-affidavit (extensions may be requested, but should not be assumed).

B) Court-issued subpoena (later-stage, once a case is in court)

This may be:

Subpoena ad testificandum (to testify)
Subpoena duces tecum (to produce documents)
Or you may receive summons/notice of arraignment (not always labeled “subpoena,” but functionally a court directive to appear)

Court subpoenas carry different risks: non-compliance can lead to contempt issues (especially for witnesses) or adverse consequences in proceedings.

7) Responding to a prosecutor’s subpoena: a practical, defense-oriented roadmap

Step 1: Verify what you were served

Check:

Issuing office (City/Provincial Prosecutor, etc.)
Case/IS number
Complainant’s name and allegations
Copies of attachments (check, dishonor memo, demand/notice, registry receipts, etc.)
Deadline to file your counter-affidavit

If attachments are missing or illegible, this is often raised immediately because it affects the ability to respond.

Step 2: Calendar the deadline—and decide whether to seek an extension

If more time is needed to gather records (bank statements, deposit slips, messages, agreements), an early written request for extension is common practice. Late requests are less persuasive.

Step 3: Identify the core issues to answer

A good counter-affidavit is not just a narrative denial; it targets the legal elements and the evidence. Typical focal points:

Was there issuance/delivery for value?
Was the check presented within 90 days?
What exactly was the reason for dishonor?
Is there proof of receipt of notice of dishonor?
Was there payment or arrangement within 5 banking days from notice?
Was there actual knowledge of insufficiency at issuance—or can the presumption be rebutted?
Are there defenses like bank error, deposit-in-transit, credit line arrangements, or wrongful dishonor?
Are you the correct person to charge (e.g., corporate signatory issues)?

Step 4: Gather documents (what usually matters most)

Commonly useful attachments include:

The check(s) (front/back if available)
Bank return memo / dishonor slip
Demand letter / notice of dishonor and proof of receipt (or lack thereof)
Any payment receipts, transfer records, or settlement agreements
Bank statements around issuance and presentment dates
Proof of deposits made or funds expected (especially if arguing lack of knowledge or bank error)
Contracts, invoices, delivery receipts, or communications showing the context (for “for value,” conditional delivery, dispute, stop-payment reasons)

Step 5: Build defenses that match the statute (common BP 22 defense themes)

1) No proper notice of dishonor / no proof of receipt If the complainant cannot prove receipt of notice of dishonor, it can significantly weaken the prosecution’s reliance on presumptions.

2) Payment or arrangement within five banking days from receipt of notice This is often used to prevent the presumption of knowledge from operating (and, in many real-world prosecutions, is a practical off-ramp if properly documented).

3) Lack of knowledge at issuance (rebutting the presumption) Possible factual bases:

Bank error or wrongful dishonor
Deposit was made and should have covered the check
Creditable arrangements or credit lines (rare, but possible depending on banking relationship)
Timing mismatch: funds were expected/committed and the drawer reasonably believed they would be available

4) No “issuance” in the legal sense (no delivery, stolen/lost check, unauthorized negotiation) If a check was lost/stolen and wrongfully presented, the “issuance/delivery” element is disputed.

5) Forgery / not the signatory If the signature is forged or the accused is not the actual drawer/signatory, this is fundamental.

6) Dishonor reason not within BP 22’s scope (fact-dependent) If the check was dishonored for reasons unrelated to insufficiency/credit and not stop-payment without valid reason, the fit to BP 22 becomes contested.

7) Valid reason for stop payment (when stop payment is the theory) If the bank dishonored due to stop-payment, the “valid reason” becomes central and evidence-heavy (e.g., fraud, failure of consideration, defective goods, etc.). Note: even “valid reason” arguments are fact-specific and can be risky without strong proof.

8) Prescription (time-bar) BP 22, as a special law with a maximum imprisonment of one year, is commonly treated as prescribing in years, not decades; in many discussions it is treated as four (4) years under special-law prescription rules, with prescription interrupted by proper filing. The exact computation depends on procedural milestones and should be evaluated carefully.

Step 6: File the counter-affidavit properly

Common procedural pitfalls:

Missing notarization
Unlabeled annexes
Failure to address specific allegations
Failure to attach proof that is actually available (bank records are often decisive)

Step 7: Prepare for possible next steps

After submission, the prosecutor may:

Decide based on affidavits
Call a clarificatory hearing
Issue a resolution finding or not finding probable cause

8) Responding to a court subpoena or summons (once the case is in court)

If you receive a summons/notice of arraignment

This is a directive to appear. Missing arraignment can lead to:

Arrest warrant issuance in some situations
Setting of bail conditions
Delays that worsen outcomes

In many BP 22 cases, because the penalty is low and the accused is not in custody, courts often use summons rather than immediate arrest—but that is not guaranteed.

If you receive a subpoena as a witness

A witness subpoena may be enforced through contempt mechanisms if willfully ignored. If appearance is impossible, the proper approach is usually to seek resetting/quashal with valid grounds and supporting proof.

If you receive a subpoena duces tecum

Producing documents must be handled carefully:

Ensure relevance and scope
Consider lawful privileges/confidentiality
Avoid altering or withholding responsive documents without a valid legal basis

9) Settlement options in BP 22: what settlement can and cannot do

The big rule: settlement does not automatically erase the criminal case

Because BP 22 is a public offense:

The case is prosecuted by the State.
The complainant’s forgiveness or a private settlement does not automatically bind the prosecutor or court.

However, settlement can still be highly influential at various stages.

A) Pre-complaint settlement (best time to settle, if feasible)

If payment is made early—especially within the framework of notice and the statutory 5-banking-day window—many disputes never mature into filings.

Practical tools:

Full payment
Documented payment plan with clear timelines
Replacement payment instruments (handled cautiously; avoid compounding risk)

B) Settlement during the prosecutor stage (after subpoena, before Information is filed)

This is a common settlement window.

What settlement can do here:

The complainant may execute an affidavit of desistance or acknowledge full payment.
This can affect the prosecutor’s view of the case, especially where proof of notice, knowledge, or issuance is weak, or where the complainant becomes unwilling to testify.

What settlement cannot guarantee:

Automatic dismissal. Prosecutors may still pursue if they believe probable cause exists and evidence can be presented.

C) Settlement after the Information is filed in court

Even later, settlement can still matter:

Civil liability can be compromised and paid.
The court may take settlement into account in sentencing (fine vs. imprisonment), especially where restitution is made.
The complainant’s satisfaction can sometimes reduce litigation friction—but the criminal case remains within the court’s control.

D) Plea and sentencing strategy (fine vs. imprisonment)

BP 22’s penalty structure allows:

Imprisonment (30 days to 1 year), or
Fine (generally from the amount up to double the check amount, subject to a cap), or
Both (depending on the court)

In practice, courts have been encouraged through long-standing policy concerns (including jail congestion and proportionality) to consider fines in appropriate cases, especially where the accused has made restitution. Outcomes remain fact- and judge-dependent.

E) Probation (post-conviction relief path)

If convicted, BP 22 penalties are often within the range where probation can be legally available, depending on:

The actual sentence imposed
Disqualifications under the Probation Law
Whether multiple convictions create an aggregate imprisonment exposure that affects eligibility

Probation is not “settlement,” but it is a major outcome lever in BP 22 litigation strategy.

F) Barangay conciliation and mediation (case-dependent)

Where the parties are individuals residing in the same locality and no exception applies, Katarungang Pambarangay processes can be relevant as a pre-filing step in some disputes. That said, whether barangay conciliation is required or practical depends on statutory exceptions (e.g., parties’ residences, corporate parties, urgency, and other grounds).

Court-annexed mediation may address the civil aspect even in criminal cases, but criminal liability is still controlled by the State and the court.

10) BP 22 vs. Estafa (and why complainants sometimes file both)

A bouncing check can trigger:

BP 22 (special law; focuses on issuance of a dishonored check with knowledge/presumption mechanics), and/or
Estafa (Revised Penal Code, typically requiring deceit and damage, with specific modes of commission)

They are not identical:

BP 22 does not require deceit.
Estafa generally requires deceit and reliance, and the check is often the instrument of fraud.

Whether both may proceed depends on facts and legal doctrines applied to the specific case. This matters because:

Estafa can carry heavier penalties.
Settlement dynamics and litigation risk change dramatically if estafa is in play.

11) Civil liability in BP 22 cases: the money side of the case

Even though BP 22 is criminal, it commonly carries a civil aspect, often the value of the check and related damages.

Key points:

The civil action may be treated as impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless properly reserved or separately filed (subject to procedural rules and how the case is initiated).
Courts may award:
- The amount of the check (or proven unpaid obligation)
- Interest (legal or stipulated, depending on proof and the nature of obligation)
- Attorney’s fees and damages only when legal and factually supported (not automatic)

Settlement frequently focuses on civil liability because it is the part parties can fully control.

12) Special situations that frequently decide BP 22 cases

A) “Issued only as a guarantee” (postdated checks as security)

This is one of the most common defenses raised. It is also one of the most commonly misunderstood. BP 22 exposure can still arise because the statute focuses on issuance and dishonor, not the label parties give the check. Outcomes depend on evidence about delivery, value, and expectations around presentment.

B) Corporate checks and officers

If a corporate account check bounces, the signatory (the person who signed/issued the check) is usually the one exposed to BP 22 liability—not the corporation as an abstract entity. Authority, role, and signature authenticity matter.

C) Lost/stolen checks, forged signatures

These are elemental defenses because they challenge issuance and identity.

D) Bank error / wrongful dishonor

This defense lives or dies on documentation (bank certifications, account records, deposit timing). It is not enough to assert “the bank was wrong” without proof.

E) Multiple checks and exposure scaling

Because each check can be charged separately, exposure can multiply:

Multiple counts
Multiple bail amounts (if required)
Multiple fines/sentences
Probation eligibility complexity

13) Practical “do’s and don’ts” after receiving a subpoena in a BP 22 complaint

Do:

Treat the subpoena as time-sensitive; calendar the deadline immediately.
Secure bank records early; banks do not always keep easily retrievable records indefinitely.
Preserve communications (texts, emails, chat logs) showing agreements, delivery issues, disputes, or payment arrangements.
If settlement is being explored, document payments and acknowledgments clearly.

Don’t:

Ignore the subpoena (it risks waiver of the chance to be heard at the prosecutor stage).
Submit a counter-affidavit that is purely emotional or purely narrative without addressing notice, presentment timing, dishonor reason, and knowledge.
Assume an affidavit of desistance automatically ends the matter.
Issue replacement checks casually; replacing one bounced check with another can multiply exposure.

14) Penalties and real-world consequences

Statutory penalties generally include:

Imprisonment (30 days to 1 year), or
Fine (up to double the amount of the check, subject to a cap), or
Both, depending on the court’s discretion and circumstances

Collateral consequences may include:

Time and cost of criminal litigation
Bail requirements if a warrant issues
Difficulty in travel or clearances depending on case status and local practice
Reputational and business impacts

15) Bottom line: what matters most in BP 22 subpoena response and settlement decisions

In BP 22 practice, outcomes often turn on a small set of high-impact facts:

Proof of receipt of notice of dishonor
Timing (presentment within 90 days; payment/arrangement within 5 banking days from notice)
Dishonor reason (insufficiency/credit vs. other reasons)
Identity and issuance (was the accused truly the drawer/signatory; was there delivery)
Documented restitution/settlement efforts (especially early, and properly receipted)

A strong subpoena response targets those points with documents—not just denials—while settlement strategy is most effective when aligned with those legal pressure points and timed before positions harden in court.