I. Introduction

In Philippine commercial life, two criminal laws are often mentioned whenever a check is dishonored: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, commonly called the Bouncing Checks Law, and Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

Although both may arise from the same transaction involving a dishonored check, they are not the same offense. BP 22 punishes the making or issuance of a worthless check, while estafa punishes fraud or deceit that causes damage. A person may be charged with one, the other, or both, depending on the facts.

The distinction is important because many people assume that every bounced check is automatically estafa. That is incorrect. A bounced check may create civil liability, may constitute BP 22, may constitute estafa, may constitute both, or may be merely a failed commercial transaction with no criminal liability.

II. BP 22: The Bouncing Checks Law

A. Nature and Purpose of BP 22

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was enacted to protect the integrity of checks as substitutes for money. The law seeks to prevent the circulation of worthless checks because checks are commonly relied upon in business and private transactions.

BP 22 is considered a crime against public interest, not merely against the private payee. The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a check that is later dishonored, under circumstances covered by law.

The law does not primarily punish fraud. It punishes the act of issuing a check that the drawer knows, or is presumed to know, is not sufficiently funded or cannot be honored.

B. Acts Punished Under BP 22

BP 22 punishes two general acts:

Making, drawing, and issuing a check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the drawer does not have sufficient funds or credit with the bank; and
Having sufficient funds or credit at the time of issuance but failing to keep sufficient funds or credit to cover the full amount of the check within 90 days from the date appearing on the check, causing the check to be dishonored.

In simpler terms, BP 22 may apply when a person issues a check that later bounces because the account has insufficient funds, the account is closed, payment was stopped without valid reason, or the bank refuses payment for a reason attributable to the drawer.

C. Elements of BP 22

For BP 22 liability, the prosecution generally must prove:

The making, drawing, and issuance of a check by the accused;
The check was made or issued to apply on account or for value;
The accused knew at the time of issuance that he or she did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon presentment; and
The check was subsequently 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 reason.

The required knowledge of insufficiency of funds may be proven directly or through a statutory presumption.

D. The 90-Day Period

BP 22 recognizes that a drawer may have sufficient funds when the check is issued but may later fail to maintain enough funds to cover it.

The law provides that the drawer may be liable if he or she fails to keep sufficient funds or credit to cover the check for 90 days from the date appearing on the check.

This does not mean that the payee must wait 90 days before depositing the check. Rather, the rule relates to the drawer’s obligation to maintain sufficient funds or credit during the legally relevant period.

E. Notice of Dishonor

One of the most important requirements in BP 22 cases is notice of dishonor.

Because the law creates a presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, the drawer must be given notice that the check was dishonored. The notice gives the drawer an opportunity to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for payment.

Without proper proof that the accused received notice of dishonor, the prosecution may fail to establish the statutory presumption of knowledge.

The notice must generally inform the drawer that the check was dishonored and that payment must be made within the legally recognized period. Jurisprudence has emphasized that the prosecution must prove not only that a notice was sent, but that the accused actually received it or that receipt may be legally established.

F. Five-Banking-Day Grace Period

After receiving notice of dishonor, the drawer is given a period, commonly referred to as five banking days, to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for full payment.

If the drawer pays within that period, the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds may not arise.

Payment after the five-banking-day period may not automatically erase criminal liability, although it may affect civil liability, settlement, or the court’s appreciation of the circumstances.

G. Good Faith in BP 22

Good faith may matter, but BP 22 is generally stricter than estafa. The offense focuses on the issuance of a dishonored check, not necessarily on fraudulent intent.

A drawer may argue that there was no knowledge of insufficiency of funds, that the check was not issued for value, that the check was not intended for deposit, that it was issued as security under specific circumstances, or that there was no valid notice of dishonor.

Still, mere claims of good faith are not enough. Courts look at the facts, including the purpose of the check, the surrounding transaction, bank records, the reason for dishonor, and whether the drawer acted promptly after notice.

H. Checks Issued as Guarantee or Security

A common issue is whether BP 22 applies to checks issued as guarantee, security, or collateral.

The general rule is that BP 22 may still apply even if the check was issued as security, so long as it was issued to apply on account or for value and was meant to represent an obligation. The law is concerned with the issuance of a check that enters commercial circulation and is later dishonored.

However, facts matter. If the evidence shows that the check was not intended to be deposited, or that it was delivered under circumstances negating an essential element of the offense, the defense may contest liability.

I. Penalty for BP 22

BP 22 originally allowed imprisonment, fine, or both. However, Philippine jurisprudence and later policy developments encouraged courts to impose a fine instead of imprisonment where appropriate, especially considering the nature of BP 22 and the constitutional policy against imprisonment for debt.

The penalty may include a fine based on the amount of the check, subject to legal limits, and civil liability corresponding to the unpaid value of the check.

BP 22 remains a criminal offense, but imprisonment is no longer favored as a routine penalty in many cases. Courts often impose fines, depending on the facts and applicable rules.

J. Civil Liability in BP 22

A BP 22 case may include civil liability for the value of the dishonored check, plus appropriate interest, costs, and other amounts allowed by law.

The civil action is generally deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or previously filed separately.

Payment of the amount of the check may satisfy civil liability but does not always automatically extinguish criminal liability once the offense has already been committed.

III. Estafa Under the Revised Penal Code

A. Nature of Estafa

Estafa is punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. It is a crime against property. Unlike BP 22, estafa requires fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence, and the offended party must suffer damage or prejudice.

In check-related cases, estafa usually arises when a person uses a check as a fraudulent means to obtain money, goods, property, services, or credit from another.

The central question is not merely whether the check bounced. The question is whether the accused used deceit to induce the complainant to part with something of value.

B. Relevant Form of Estafa Involving Checks

The most common check-related estafa situation falls under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. This involves estafa committed by postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or the funds were insufficient to cover the amount of the check.

However, not every bouncing check is estafa. The check must have been used as a means of deceit.

C. Elements of Estafa by Issuing a Bad Check

In general, estafa involving a check requires proof of:

The accused postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation;
The accused had no funds or insufficient funds in the bank at the time of issuance;
The check was issued prior to or simultaneously with the fraud or deceit;
The offended party relied on the check and was induced to part with money, property, goods, services, or credit; and
The offended party suffered damage or prejudice.

The timing is crucial. If the check was issued only after the obligation had already been incurred, and the complainant did not rely on the check when parting with value, estafa may not be established.

D. Deceit as the Core of Estafa

The essence of estafa is deceit. The prosecution must show that the accused committed fraudulent acts before or at the same time the complainant parted with value.

In check cases, deceit may exist when the accused issued a check to make the complainant believe that payment was assured, causing the complainant to deliver goods, money, or property.

If the complainant already delivered the goods or money before the check was issued, the check may be evidence of debt, but not necessarily of estafa. The check must be the reason, or one of the reasons, the offended party was induced to transact.

E. Damage or Prejudice

Estafa requires proof of damage. The offended party must have suffered financial loss or prejudice because of the accused’s deceit.

The dishonor of the check may be evidence of damage, but it is not enough by itself. The prosecution must connect the dishonored check to the fraudulent transaction.

F. Estafa and Pre-Existing Obligations

A major distinction between BP 22 and estafa concerns checks issued for pre-existing obligations.

If a person issues a check to pay an already existing debt, and the creditor had already parted with money or property before the check was issued, estafa may be difficult to prove because the creditor was not induced by the check to part with value.

However, BP 22 may still apply if the elements of BP 22 are present.

This is one of the most practical distinctions:

A check issued for a pre-existing debt may support BP 22 liability, but not necessarily estafa.

IV. BP 22 vs. Estafa: Key Differences

A. Nature of the Offense

BP 22 is an offense against public interest. It protects the banking system and the reliability of checks.

Estafa is an offense against property. It punishes fraud that causes damage to another.

B. Main Act Punished

BP 22 punishes the issuance of a worthless check.

Estafa punishes deceit or fraud that causes the offended party to suffer damage.

C. Need for Fraud

BP 22 does not require proof of intent to defraud. Knowledge of insufficient funds is enough, and such knowledge may be presumed under the law after notice of dishonor and failure to pay within the required period.

Estafa requires proof of deceit, fraudulent intent, and damage.

D. Timing of the Check

In BP 22, the check may have been issued for a present obligation, a past obligation, or value, provided the law’s elements are met.

In estafa, the check must generally be issued before or at the time the complainant is induced to part with money, goods, property, or credit. If the check was issued after the obligation already existed, it may not prove deceit.

E. Damage

In BP 22, actual damage to the payee is not the controlling element. The offense is the issuance of a dishonored check under the circumstances punished by law.

In estafa, damage or prejudice to the offended party is essential.

F. Notice of Dishonor

In BP 22, notice of dishonor is very important because it supports the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds.

In estafa, notice of dishonor is not the essence of the offense. The issue is whether deceit existed when the complainant parted with value.

G. Presumption

In BP 22, the law provides a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds after dishonor and proper notice, subject to the drawer’s opportunity to pay within the prescribed period.

In estafa, fraud is not presumed in the same manner. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

H. Penalty

BP 22 commonly results in fines and civil liability, although the law still recognizes criminal liability.

Estafa carries penalties under the Revised Penal Code, often based on the amount of damage, and can involve imprisonment depending on the facts and amount involved.

I. Civil Liability

Both BP 22 and estafa may involve civil liability.

In BP 22, civil liability is usually tied to the amount of the dishonored check.

In estafa, civil liability corresponds to the damage caused by the fraudulent act.

J. Possibility of Filing Both Cases

The same act of issuing a dishonored check may give rise to both BP 22 and estafa if the facts satisfy the elements of both offenses.

This does not necessarily violate double jeopardy because BP 22 and estafa have different elements. BP 22 punishes the issuance of a worthless check; estafa punishes deceit and damage.

However, the prosecution must independently prove the elements of each offense.

V. Comparative Table

Point of Comparison	BP 22	Estafa
Governing law	Batas Pambansa Blg. 22	Article 315, Revised Penal Code
Nature	Crime against public interest	Crime against property
Core act	Issuing a dishonored check	Defrauding another through deceit
Fraud required?	No intent to defraud required	Yes
Damage required?	Not the central element	Yes
Check for pre-existing debt	May still be BP 22	Usually not estafa without prior deceit
Notice of dishonor	Essential to establish presumption of knowledge	Not the essence of liability
Main proof	Issuance, dishonor, notice, nonpayment	Deceit, reliance, damage
Penalty tendency	Fine often imposed	Penalty depends on amount and circumstances
Civil liability	Amount of check	Amount of damage

VI. Examples

Example 1: BP 22 Only

A debtor owes a creditor ₱500,000 from a loan obtained months earlier. The debtor later issues a check to pay the debt. The check bounces due to insufficient funds. The creditor had already released the loan long before the check was issued.

This may be BP 22 if the elements are present, including notice of dishonor. But it may not be estafa because the creditor was not induced by the check to release the money.

Example 2: Estafa and BP 22

A buyer purchases goods from a supplier and issues a postdated check at the same time to induce the supplier to release the goods. The buyer knows the account has no sufficient funds. The supplier releases the goods because of the check. The check later bounces.

This may be both BP 22 and estafa. BP 22 arises from the issuance and dishonor of the check. Estafa arises from the deceit that induced the supplier to part with the goods.

Example 3: No BP 22, Possible Civil Case Only

A person gives a check but the prosecution cannot prove that the accused received notice of dishonor. The check bounced, but the notice requirement is not properly established.

A civil action to collect the debt may still exist, but BP 22 liability may fail.

Example 4: No Estafa Because No Prior Deceit

A borrower borrows money without issuing any check. Months later, after repeated demands, the borrower issues a check that bounces.

This may be BP 22, but estafa may fail because the check did not induce the lender to release the loan.

VII. Defenses in BP 22 Cases

Common defenses in BP 22 include:

No valid notice of dishonor was received;
The check was not issued for value or on account;
The accused did not make, draw, or issue the check;
The signature was forged or unauthorized;
The check was not presented within the legally relevant period;
The account had sufficient funds or credit;
The dishonor was due to a reason not attributable to the drawer;
Payment was made within the required period after notice;
The check was materially altered; or
The prosecution failed to prove identity, issuance, dishonor, notice, or knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

The most common and often decisive defense is the lack of proof of actual receipt of notice of dishonor.

VIII. Defenses in Estafa Cases

Common defenses in estafa involving checks include:

No deceit was committed;
The check was issued after the obligation already existed;
The complainant did not rely on the check when parting with money, goods, or property;
The transaction was merely a civil debt or failed business arrangement;
There was no damage caused by fraud;
The accused believed in good faith that the check would be funded;
The accused did not issue or authorize the check;
The prosecution failed to prove fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt; or
The facts show breach of contract, not criminal fraud.

In estafa, the defense often focuses on the absence of deceit at the beginning of the transaction.

IX. Civil Liability and Settlement

Settlement is common in BP 22 and estafa cases, but its legal effects differ depending on timing and circumstances.

Payment before the offense is complete may prevent criminal liability in BP 22, especially if made within the period after notice of dishonor.

Payment after the case has already been filed may extinguish or reduce civil liability, but it does not automatically erase criminal liability. It may, however, influence the complainant’s willingness to execute an affidavit of desistance or the court’s appreciation of the accused’s conduct.

In estafa, payment or restitution does not automatically extinguish criminal liability once fraud has been committed. It may affect civil liability and may be considered in mitigation, but criminal liability may remain.

X. Affidavit of Desistance

An affidavit of desistance is a statement by the complainant that he or she is no longer interested in pursuing the case.

It does not automatically result in dismissal. Criminal cases are prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. Once a criminal action is filed, the matter is not purely private.

Courts may consider desistance, especially if it affects the availability or credibility of evidence, but the prosecution may still proceed if the elements of the crime can be proven.

XI. Prosecutorial and Procedural Considerations

A. Preliminary Investigation

For offenses requiring preliminary investigation, the complainant files a complaint-affidavit with supporting documents, such as:

The dishonored check;
Bank return slip or notice of dishonor;
Demand letter or notice of dishonor;
Proof of receipt of notice;
Transaction documents;
Receipts, invoices, loan agreements, or delivery records;
Communications showing the circumstances of issuance; and
Witness affidavits.

The respondent may submit a counter-affidavit and supporting evidence.

B. Criminal Complaint and Information

If the prosecutor finds probable cause, an Information may be filed in court.

For BP 22, the Information must allege the essential facts showing issuance, dishonor, notice, and failure to pay.

For estafa, the Information must allege deceit, reliance, damage, and the manner by which the accused defrauded the complainant.

C. Venue

Venue depends on where the essential acts occurred.

For BP 22, venue may involve the place where the check was issued, delivered, or dishonored, depending on the facts and applicable procedural rules.

For estafa, venue is generally where deceit occurred or where damage was caused, including where the offended party parted with money or property.

Venue must be properly alleged and proven because criminal jurisdiction is territorial.

D. Prescriptive Period

The prescriptive period differs depending on the offense and penalty involved. BP 22 and estafa have different prescriptive rules.

Prescription should be carefully computed from the proper starting point, considering the date of commission, discovery when relevant, filing of complaint, and applicable interruptions.

Because prescription can be technical and fact-sensitive, it is often a key issue in older check cases.

XII. Jurisdiction and Court Handling

BP 22 cases are generally handled by first-level courts depending on current procedural rules and penalty considerations. Estafa jurisdiction may depend on the penalty imposable, which is often affected by the amount involved.

Modern procedural rules may allow simplified or summary handling of certain BP 22 cases, especially where the penalty is a fine. Estafa, because it involves fraud and can carry heavier penalties, may proceed under ordinary criminal procedure depending on the amount and circumstances.

XIII. Constitutional Issue: Imprisonment for Debt

A frequent argument is that BP 22 violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

The prevailing view is that BP 22 does not punish the failure to pay a debt as such. It punishes the issuance of a worthless check, which affects public interest and the stability of commercial transactions.

Thus, BP 22 has been upheld as a valid criminal law. However, courts have increasingly recognized that imprisonment should not be automatically imposed in ordinary BP 22 cases, and fines are often preferred.

XIV. Practical Difference Between Debt, BP 22, and Estafa

A person who fails to pay a debt is not automatically a criminal.

A debt becomes a BP 22 issue when the debtor issues a check that is dishonored under circumstances punished by law.

A debt becomes an estafa issue when the debtor used fraud or deceit to obtain money, property, goods, services, or credit.

Thus:

Debt alone: civil liability;
Debt plus bounced check: possible BP 22;
Debt plus deceit causing delivery of value: possible estafa;
Bounced check used as deceit: possible BP 22 and estafa.

XV. Importance of Timing

Timing is often the decisive factor in distinguishing BP 22 from estafa.

The question is: When was the check issued relative to the complainant’s delivery of money, goods, or property?

If the check was issued before or at the same time the complainant parted with value, and the complainant relied on the check, estafa may be present.

If the check was issued after the obligation had already arisen, estafa may fail, although BP 22 may still apply.

XVI. Burden of Proof

Both BP 22 and estafa are criminal offenses, so guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

For BP 22, the prosecution must prove the issuance of the check, dishonor, notice, and nonpayment.

For estafa, the prosecution must prove deceit, reliance, damage, and criminal intent.

Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

XVII. Common Misconceptions

Misconception 1: Every bounced check is estafa.

False. A bounced check is not automatically estafa. Fraud must be proven.

Misconception 2: Payment automatically dismisses the criminal case.

Not always. Payment may affect civil liability and settlement, but criminal liability may remain depending on timing and circumstances.

Misconception 3: A check issued as security can never result in BP 22.

False. A security check may still fall under BP 22 if issued for value or on account and later dishonored.

Misconception 4: BP 22 is only a collection tool.

Not exactly. BP 22 is a criminal statute protecting public interest, although it is often used in collection-related disputes.

Misconception 5: No demand letter means no BP 22.

More precisely, the issue is not merely a demand letter but proof of notice of dishonor and receipt by the drawer. Without proper notice, BP 22 liability may fail.

XVIII. Strategic Considerations for Complainants

A complainant should determine whether the facts support BP 22, estafa, or only a civil collection case.

For BP 22, the complainant should preserve:

The original check;
Bank return slip;
Notice of dishonor;
Proof of service and receipt;
Communications with the drawer;
Transaction documents; and
Proof of nonpayment.

For estafa, the complainant must additionally show:

The accused made false representations;
The check induced the complainant to part with value;
The accused knew the check was worthless or acted fraudulently;
The complainant relied on the deceit; and
Damage resulted.

A weak estafa complaint may be dismissed if the facts show only a debt or breach of contract.

XIX. Strategic Considerations for the Accused

An accused in a BP 22 or estafa case should examine:

Whether he or she actually issued the check;
Whether the check was complete and authentic;
Whether the check was presented properly;
Whether the dishonor was properly proven;
Whether notice of dishonor was received;
Whether payment was made within the legal period;
Whether the obligation was pre-existing;
Whether the complainant relied on the check;
Whether there was any deceit at the inception of the transaction;
Whether the case is actually civil in nature; and
Whether prescription, venue, or jurisdictional issues exist.

The defense should not rely solely on the argument that the case involves a debt. Courts distinguish between mere inability to pay and criminal acts involving worthless checks or fraud.

XX. Relationship with Civil Collection Cases

A creditor may file a civil action to collect the unpaid amount. However, if a criminal case is filed, the civil action arising from the offense is generally deemed included unless separately reserved, waived, or already instituted.

The same transaction may produce:

A civil collection case;
A BP 22 criminal case;
An estafa criminal case; or
A combination of these.

Courts seek to avoid double recovery. A complainant may not recover the same amount twice under different cases.

XXI. Corporate and Representative Liability

In business settings, checks are often issued by corporate officers or authorized signatories.

A corporation itself may be involved in the transaction, but criminal liability generally attaches to the natural person who committed the punishable act, such as the officer who signed or issued the check, if the elements are proven.

For BP 22, the person who actually made, drew, or issued the check may be held liable. Corporate title alone is not enough; the prosecution must connect the accused to the issuance and knowledge required by law.

For estafa, the prosecution must prove that the accused personally participated in the deceit or fraudulent scheme.

XXII. Stop Payment Orders

A check may be dishonored because of a stop payment order.

Under BP 22, liability may still arise if the check would have been dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit even without the stop payment order, or if the stop payment was made without valid reason.

A valid stop payment order may be a defense depending on the facts, such as fraud by the payee, failure of consideration, unauthorized completion of the check, or other legitimate grounds.

In estafa, a stop payment order may be relevant to intent, but the main issue remains whether deceit existed at the time the complainant parted with value.

XXIII. Postdated Checks

Postdated checks are common in loans, leases, purchases, and installment payments.

A postdated check may give rise to BP 22 if it is dishonored and the elements are present.

A postdated check may give rise to estafa if it was used to deceive the complainant into delivering money, property, or goods, and the accused had fraudulent intent at the time.

The mere fact that a check is postdated does not automatically make the case criminal. The surrounding facts must be examined.

XXIV. Evidence Commonly Used

For BP 22

The usual evidence includes:

Original check;
Bank stamp or return slip showing dishonor;
Account records;
Notice of dishonor or demand letter;
Registry return card, courier proof, personal service receipt, or acknowledgment;
Testimony of the complainant;
Bank representative testimony or certification; and
Proof of nonpayment.

For Estafa

The usual evidence includes:

Original check;
Dishonor documents;
Contracts, invoices, purchase orders, receipts, delivery receipts;
Communications showing representations made by the accused;
Proof that the complainant delivered money, goods, or property because of the check;
Proof of damage;
Testimony on reliance and deceit; and
Evidence showing accused’s knowledge or fraudulent intent.

XXV. Why BP 22 Is Easier to Prove Than Estafa

BP 22 is often easier to prove because the prosecution need not establish deceit in the same way estafa requires. The prosecution focuses on the check, dishonor, notice, and failure to pay.

Estafa is harder because the prosecution must prove the accused’s fraudulent intent and the complainant’s reliance on the deceit.

This is why some bounced-check cases result in conviction for BP 22 but acquittal for estafa.

XXVI. Why Estafa Is More Serious

Estafa is often treated as more serious because it involves fraud and injury to property rights. Penalties may be heavier, especially when the amount involved is large.

BP 22, while criminal, is more regulatory in character and is tied to maintaining confidence in checks as commercial instruments.

XXVII. Legal Consequences of Acquittal

Acquittal in BP 22 does not automatically mean acquittal in estafa, and vice versa, because the elements differ.

A person may be acquitted of estafa because deceit was not proven but still be convicted of BP 22 because the check was dishonored and the BP 22 elements were established.

A person may be acquitted of BP 22 because notice of dishonor was not proven but may still face estafa liability if deceit and damage are proven.

Civil liability may also survive depending on the basis of the acquittal.

XXVIII. Practical Checklist

BP 22 Checklist

Ask:

Was a check made, drawn, and issued by the accused?
Was it issued for value or on account?
Was it presented for payment?
Was it dishonored?
Was the reason for dishonor insufficiency of funds, closed account, or similar ground?
Was notice of dishonor received by the accused?
Did the accused fail to pay within five banking days from notice?
Is the case filed within the prescriptive period?
Is venue proper?
Is civil liability still unpaid?

Estafa Checklist

Ask:

Was there deceit?
Was the check issued before or at the time the offended party parted with value?
Did the offended party rely on the check?
Did the accused know the check was unfunded or insufficiently funded?
Did the complainant suffer damage?
Was the transaction merely a pre-existing debt?
Is there proof of fraudulent intent?
Is the amount of damage established?
Is venue proper?
Is the case filed within the prescriptive period?

XXIX. Conclusion

BP 22 and estafa are related but distinct offenses in Philippine law. Both may involve a dishonored check, but they punish different wrongs.

BP 22 punishes the issuance of a worthless check because of its harmful effect on commercial transactions and public confidence in checks. It does not require proof of deceit in the same way estafa does.

Estafa punishes fraud. A bounced check becomes estafa only when it is used as a means of deceit to induce another to part with money, goods, property, services, or credit, resulting in damage.

The central distinction is this:

BP 22 focuses on the check. Estafa focuses on the fraud.

A bounced check may create BP 22 liability even without estafa. Estafa may arise only when deceit, reliance, and damage are proven. In many cases, the outcome depends on timing, notice of dishonor, proof of reliance, and whether the obligation existed before the check was issued.