DEFENSES IN BOUNCING-CHECKS PROSECUTIONS
(“BP 22”) IN THE PHILIPPINES
I. Legislative Setting
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the “Bouncing Checks Law”), approved on April 3 1979, criminalizes the making, drawing or issuance of any check knowing at the time of issue that the drawer does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for payment in full upon presentment. Congress enacted the statute to “prohibit, under pain of penal sanction, the pernicious practice of issuing worthless checks,” Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419 (18 Dec 1986).
The offense is mala prohibita; criminal intent is not an element. Penalty: imprisonment of 30 days – 1 year and/or a fine of up to twice the amount of the check (maximum ₱200,000 under R.A. 10951).
Supreme Court Administrative Circulars 12-2000 & 13-2001 direct courts—where the circumstances warrant—to prefer the imposition of a fine over imprisonment, although the trial court retains discretion.
II. Elements the Prosecution Must Prove
- Making, drawing, or issuance of a check.
- Knowledge of insufficiency of funds (rebuttable presumption arises prima facie).
- Dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or because the account is closed.
- Failure to pay or make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days from receipt of written notice of dishonor (Domagsang v. People, G.R. No. 194237, 23 Jan 2017).
III. Statutory & Jurisprudential Presumptions
Section 2, BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency if the check is presented within ninety (90) days from its date and is dishonored. The presumption is overcome by credible proof that funds were adequate at the time of issuance or that insufficiency was due to bank error (Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119001, 30 Mar 2000).
IV. Catalogue of Defenses
Defenses fall into four broad clusters: jurisdictional/technical, element-negating, affirmative/statutory, and constitutional/procedural. The most successful defenses focus on element 4—notice of dishonor—and on raising reasonable doubt that the presumptions apply.
| Defense | Core Theory | Key Cases / Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Jurisdictional / Technical | |||
| 1 | Improper venue | The case must be filed in the place of (a) issuance, or (b) payment/presentment. | Cudia v. CA, G.R. No. 110315 (19 Mar 1999) |
| 2 | Defective Information | Omission of essential facts (date, amount, drawee bank, notice details) is fatal. | Arra v. People, G.R. No. 195989 (18 Jan 2017) |
| 3 | Prescription | Prosecution must commence within 4 years (special penal law, R.A. 3326). | Counting starts on – (a) date of check; or (b) date of last demand if outside 90-day window. |
| B. Defenses That Negate an Element | |||
| 4 | No issuance / forged signature | A forged check or one signed under duress is void ab initio; no “issuance.” | Lim v. People, G.R. No. 175722 (13 Oct 2010) |
| 5 | Check presented beyond 90 days | The statutory presumption of knowledge does not attach; prosecution must prove actual knowledge. | Wang v. People, G.R. No. 159372 (9 Mar 2004) |
| 6 | Adequate funds at issuance | Drawer had sufficient balance or credit line; dishonor due to bank error, garnishment, or hold order. | Documentary proof (bank certifications, statements) is indispensable. |
| 7 | Defective or absent written notice of dishonor | Actual receipt of a written notice is indispensable; telegram, phone call, or oral advice is not enough. | Domagsang (supra); Lazaro v. CA, G.R. No. 137761 (29 Aug 2003) |
| 8 | Payment / arrangement within 5 banking days | Statutory complete defense; extinguishes criminal liability. | Vaca v. CA, G.R. No. 131714 (16 Nov 1998) |
| C. Affirmative / Statutory Mitigation | |||
| 9 | Good-faith reliance on assurance of third party | Rarely prospers but may negate knowledge element. | Must show contemporaneous assurances and reasonableness. |
| 10 | Corporate checks: want of authority | An officer who did not make, draw or issue the check is not liable. | Lundia v. People, G.R. No. 143469 (14 Feb 2001) |
| 11 | Post-dated check issued as guarantee? | Still punishable; BUT may support good-faith defense when combined with quick payment. | Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 108738 (10 Feb 1994) |
| D. Constitutional / Procedural | |||
| 12 | Right to speedy trial | Unjustified delays (both investigation and trial) mandate dismissal. | Perez v. People, G.R. No. 164763 (12 Feb 2008) |
| 13 | Double jeopardy / multiple informations | Each check is a separate offense; a single check may not spawn several cases. | Nierras v. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 208912 (5 Apr 2016) |
| 14 | Lack of probable cause | Quash information if prosecutor relied solely on photocopies or no notice proof. | Rule 112, Sec 5, Rules of Criminal Procedure |
V. Notice of Dishonor: the Litigated Battlefield
- Form – any writing unequivocally informing the drawer that the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit.
- Service – personal delivery or registered mail; registered mail requires proof of actual receipt (registry return card or sworn testimony of postman).
- Timing – the five-banking-day grace period is counted from actual receipt, not from posting date.
- Common pitfalls for the prosecution:
- unreturned registry card;
- notice sent to old or wrong address;
- reliance on mere demand letter without proof of delivery;
- notice served on an employee or security guard without authority.
Failure to prove compliant notice is fatal—it destroys both element 4 and the statutory presumption of knowledge.
VI. Comparison With Estafa (Art. 315 ¶2[d])
| BP 22 | Estafa 315 2(d) | |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Mala prohibita | Mala in se (requires intent to defraud) |
| Elements | Four under Sec 1, BP 22 | Deceit at time of issuance + damage |
| Payment within 5 days | Complete defense | No defense but may mitigate |
| Venue | Where issued or presented | Where deceit occurred or where check delivered |
| Penalty | 30 days–1 year or fine | Graduated under Art 315 |
The same act may give rise to both crimes (People v. Sabio, G.R. No. 144315, 10 Jan 2003), but acquittal of one does not automatically bar the other unless the elements coincide and jeopardy attaches.
VII. Corporate Checks & Officer Liability
Under Sec 1, BP 22, liability attaches to the individual who actually (a) makes, (b) draws, or (c) issues the check. Thus:
- Authorized signatory – personally liable.
- Non-signing corporate officers – not liable unless conspiracy is proved.
- Countersignature – both signatories may be charged.
- Corporation itself is not criminally liable but remains civilly answerable.
VIII. Evidentiary Tips for the Defense
- Demand the original checks for inspection; question authenticity, alterations, endorsements.
- Subpoena bank ledgers/statements to show sufficiency of funds or credit line at issuance.
- Photocopies without explanation violate the best-evidence rule.
- Check whether the drawee bank’s stamp of dishonor states “DAIF” (drawn against insufficient funds) or another ground; a stamp “Account Closed” is likewise within BP 22.
- If the check was stale (> 6 months) when presented, argue absence of intent that it be deposited for payment.
IX. Prescription and Speedy Trial
- Prescription: four (4) years, counted from the commission of the offense. When check is presented late, the offense is ordinarily deemed committed on the date of last demand or last dishonor (to avoid penalizing stale checks).
- Delay in preliminary investigation and in trial are weighed under the Balancing Test in Perez; dismissal with prejudice is the remedy.
X. Penalties, Probation & Civil Liability
- Courts often impose fine only (Admin. Circ. 12-2000) where the drawer shows good faith, no prior conviction, small amounts, or restitution.
- Probation is available if imprisonment is imposed and the offender is otherwise qualified (R.A. 10707).
- Conviction does not automatically extinguish the underlying civil obligation; judgment may include restitution, interest, damages.
XI. Practical Strategy Checklist for Defense Counsel
- Scrutinize the Information – move to quash if elements, particulars, or venue are defective.
- Demand Bill of Particulars – compel prosecution to specify date of receipt of notice, mode of service.
- Challenge Notice Early – file demurrer to evidence if prosecution’s proof of notice is weak.
- Gather Banking Records – prove sufficiency of funds or bank error.
- Facilitate Settlement – pursue payment within five-day window (pre-charge) or negotiate for fine-only penalty post-charge.
- Assert Speedy Trial Rights – monitor and object to prosecutorial or judicial delays.
XII. Conclusion
BP 22 prosecutions are often won—or lost—on technical compliance with the statute, particularly regarding written notice of dishonor and the five-day grace period. Because the law creates prima facie presumptions, the defense must be proactive in destroying any element or in establishing statutory safe harbors such as prompt payment. Successful strategies mix early procedural attacks with solid evidentiary rebuttal, always mindful that BP 22 is a mala prohibita offense where even honest mistakes can carry criminal consequences unless the specific defenses outlined above are effectively invoked.
This material is provided for scholarly and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on an actual case, consult qualified Philippine counsel.