(Philippine legal context; practitioner-oriented overview)

Quick orientation. Two criminal tracks often appear when a borrower’s post-dated checks bounce: (1) B.P. Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law), a malum prohibitum offense focused on the act of issuing a worthless check; and (2) estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, a malum in se offense requiring deceit or fraud. The fact that the underlying loan carried exorbitant or “usurious” interest does not automatically defeat either charge—but it can materially shape the defense.

This article maps the complete defense landscape—elements, burden-shifting rules, documentary angles, and litigation tactics—specifically where the complainant is a lender charging oppressive interest.

I. The legal environment for “usury” today

Usury ceilings were effectively removed decades ago. There is no statutory interest cap in general commerce.
But courts police unconscionability. Exorbitant stipulations (e.g., “per month” rates that dwarf the principal, snowballing penalties, compounding in bad faith) are routinely reduced or nullified as against equity and public policy.
Sectoral regulation exists. Lending and financing companies, pawnshops, and banks are subject to disclosure, conduct, and supervisory rules. Non-compliance can support defenses and counterclaims even where no numeric cap applies.
Effect on criminal cases. Unconscionable interest does not automatically erase criminal liability for a bad check, but it can: (a) undermine deceit in estafa; (b) buttress defenses that the check was not meant as an immediately encashable instrument; and (c) supply powerful mitigation and civil offsets.

II. B.P. 22 in focus: elements and presumptions

Elements prosecutors aim to prove

The accused made/drew/issued a check to apply on account or for value;
The check was presented within a reasonable time (often litigated around 90 days from date);
The check was dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds/credit, or because the account was closed; and
The accused knew of the insufficiency at the time of issuance (this is typically established via a statutory presumption after notice of dishonor).

The two pivotal presumptions (and how to defeat them)

Presumption of knowledge: When a check is dishonored for insufficiency or account closure and the accused receives written notice of dishonor, the law presumes knowledge of insufficiency unless the maker pays or makes arrangements with the payee within five (5) banking days from receipt of that notice.
Presentment window: The presumption generally hinges on presentment within a reasonable period from the check’s date; late presentment weakens the inference that the maker knew funds would be lacking.

Practical implication: Many B.P. 22 acquittals turn on notice and timing—not on whether the loan’s interest term was awful. Build your file around these two levers.

III. Estafa by post-dated check: different theory, different defenses

For estafa under Art. 315(2)(d), the prosecution must show deceit at the inception—that the check was issued to induce the lender to part with money and that, at issuance, the borrower knew it would bounce (or used a fictitious name or false pretenses). If the check was only a subsequent security for an already-released loan, deceit is typically absent.

Why it matters: Even if an accused faces both charges, defenses that defeat deceit (estafa) may not automatically defeat knowledge (B.P. 22), and vice versa. Plead and prove them distinctly.

IV. Core defense playbook when the loan is usurious or unconscionable

A. B.P. 22–specific defenses

No valid written notice of dishonor.
- Demand strict proof of actual receipt of a written notice specifying dishonor and reason.
- Attack on timelines: If the only notice is verbal, via text, or unproven, the presumption of knowledge fails.
Compliance within five (5) banking days.
- Show full payment, partial payment with documented settlement plan, restructuring, or credible arrangements within five banking days from notice.
- Bankproof (deposit slips) + counterparty proof (receipts, chats acknowledging arrangement) are critical.
Reason for dishonor not covered by the statute.
- If the bank memo reads “stop payment,” “DAIF due to hold,” “irregular signature,” “material alteration,” “stale,” “post-dated,” etc., argue the dishonor wasn’t for insufficiency/account closure.
- Subpoena bank records and the check image to lock the exact return stamp/code.
Late or improper presentment.
- Checks presented well beyond typical banking currency weaken presumptions.
- Argue creditor manipulation (e.g., intentionally holding checks to ensure dishonor after relations soured).
Lack of due execution/authentication.
- Challenge the making/drawing/issuance: signature disputes, missing acceptance for crossed checks bearing restrictive legends, or altered dates/amounts.
Accommodation and third-party issues.
- If the check was issued as an accommodation for someone else’s loan, contest “value on account” and the accused’s knowledge of the payee’s handling and presentment.
Bank error/sufficient funds at presentment.
- Prove ledger sufficiency when the check was actually presented; pin fault on the drawee bank.

Note on the “security only” argument: For B.P. 22, courts have long emphasized that the law punishes the issuance of a worthless check regardless of purpose. Treat “security only” as a supporting theme (to contest knowledge or presentment expectations), not a stand-alone silver bullet.

B. Estafa-specific defenses

No deceit at inception (check given only as security).
- If the loan was already released before checks were issued, deceit is defeated.
- Communications, disbursement timestamps, and loan ledgers are decisive.
Good-faith belief in funding/credit.
- Show contemporaneous capacity (payroll credit, incoming receivables, credit line) expected to cover the check on or before presentment.
Absence of damage caused by deceit.
- If the lender’s funds were not induced by the check (but by a separate contract), the deceit element cracks.

V. How the “usury” features of the loan become defense multipliers

Even without a hard cap, oppressive loan features can reshape the criminal narrative:

Unconscionable interest and penalties
- Use to impeach lender credibility, rebut willful default (the debt ballooned beyond reasonable expectation), and support mitigation.
- In estafa, such terms suggest the lender was not deceived but knowingly dealt in high-risk, high-yield lending.
Non-compliance with disclosure/registration rules
- For regulated lenders, cite failures to provide clear Truth-in-Lending disclosures (effective interest, penalties, fees), or to comply with SEC/BSP registration and consumer-protection standards.
- These do not automatically acquit, but they reframe the equities, bolster civil counterclaims, and can influence prosecutorial discretion or plea dynamics.
Predatory collection conduct
- Harassment, public shaming, or unlawful collection practices can justify counter-charges/complaints and enhance bargaining leverage.

VI. Evidence and procedure: what to gather and how to argue it

A. Documents & data

The checks (front/back images, bank return stamps/codes).
Notice trail: registry receipts, demand letters, emails, delivery logs, screenshots of messages—plus proof (or lack) of actual receipt.
Bank records: certified statements for the issuance and presentment windows; proof of available funds; deposit slips within the 5-banking-day window.
Loan papers: promissory notes, disclosure statements, schedules, receipts, penalty notices, chat/email negotiation threads.
Regulatory footprint: lender’s business registration, SEC/BSP licensing (if applicable).
Timeline chart aligning (a) loan release; (b) date checks issued; (c) maturity; (d) actual dates of presentment; (e) date and mode of notice; (f) payments/arrangements.

B. Motion practice & trial themes

Separate the counts: Move to quash or demur per count, especially where notice is deficient.
Insist on the bank witness or certifications to prove reason for dishonor.
Hammer the five-day cure: Even partial but documented arrangements within the cure window can collapse the presumption.
Attack deceit for estafa: prove the check was post-transaction security; emphasize lender sophistication and risk pricing via exorbitant rates.
Mitigation and restitution: Depositing the face value into court, or tendering payment, can meaningfully affect sentencing even when not curative.

VII. Strategic pathways (outside pure acquittal)

Civil-criminal package settlements
- Negotiate principal-focused repayment with interest reduction (e.g., to a court-recognized reasonable rate), waiver of penalties, and execution of releases/affidavits of desistance.
De-risking exposure
- If multiple checks are involved, prioritize those with strongest notice defects or non-insufficiency return reasons to narrow criminal exposure.
Countermeasures
- Consider administrative or regulatory complaints against predatory lenders (for leverage), and civil actions to annul/reform unconscionable stipulations.

VIII. Common pitfalls to avoid

Assuming “usurious loan = automatic dismissal.” It doesn’t. You still must beat the B.P. 22 presumptions or the estafa deceit element.
Ignoring the notice requirement. Many lose winnable B.P. 22 cases by failing to rigorously contest actual written notice and the five-day cure.
Letting the return memo slide. Always prove the precise reason for dishonor. “Stop payment,” “irregular signature,” or “stale” can be game-changers.
Conceding timelines. Presentment well after the check date can undercut presumptions; map dates meticulously.

IX. Checklist: defending a bouncing-check case tied to an oppressive loan

Get exact bank return reason and certified check images.
Demand and test proof of actual written notice (who received, when, how).
Document payments/arrangements within five banking days of notice (if any).
Build a presentment timeline; argue staleness/late presentment where applicable.
For estafa, prove security-only issuance (loan already released before checks).
Compile unconscionable terms and regulatory lapses to support defenses, mitigation, and leverage.
Explore settlement: principal repayment with judicially reasonable interest; obtain desistance where ethically proper.
Preserve objections; consider demurrer to evidence if presumptions fail.

X. Bottom line

When checks bounce on an oppressive loan, the winning path typically runs through procedural rigor (notice, timing, bank reason) for B.P. 22, and deceit-focused argumentation for estafa—with the loan’s usurious features deployed as contextual artillery for mitigation, credibility attacks, civil offsets, and settlement leverage. Treat “usury” as your multiplier—not your only move.

Important: This overview is general information for the Philippine setting. Specific facts, bank records, and document trails decide these cases. For any live charge or demand letter, consult counsel promptly to calibrate defenses, timelines, and settlement posture.