In Philippine jurisdiction, the issuance of a "bouncing check" is governed primarily by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law, and Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (Estafa).
While the act of a check being dishonored by a bank is the central event, a conviction—particularly under B.P. 22—often hinges on a single procedural requirement: the Notice of Dishonor.
1. The Legal Necessity of the Notice
Under B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove three elements:
- The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value;
- The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and
- The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit.
The second element—knowledge of insufficiency of funds—is difficult to prove directly as it involves a state of mind. To bridge this gap, Section 2 of B.P. 22 creates a presumption of law: knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed if the check is presented within 90 days and the issuer fails to pay the amount due (or make arrangements for payment) within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that the check has not been paid.
2. Formal Requirements of the Notice
To effectively trigger the five-day period and the subsequent legal presumption of knowledge, the Notice of Dishonor must meet specific criteria:
- Written Form: While the law does not explicitly forbid oral notice, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled (e.g., Domagsang v. Court of Appeals) that the notice must be in writing. A mere oral demand is insufficient to establish the "prima facie" evidence of knowledge required for a criminal conviction.
- Clarity of Demand: The letter must clearly state that the check was dishonored and demand that the issuer pay the face value of the check or make arrangements for its payment.
- Reference to the Check: It should specify the check number, date, amount, and the reason for dishonor (e.g., DAIF - Drawn Against Insufficient Funds).
3. The Procedure for Service
The most common pitfall in these cases is failing to prove that the issuer actually received the notice. The procedure for service generally follows these steps:
Personal Service
This is the most preferred method. The notice is handed directly to the issuer.
- Proof: The issuer must sign a "Received" copy with the date of receipt.
- Challenge: If the issuer refuses to sign, the server must execute an Affidavit of Service explaining the circumstances.
Registered Mail
If personal service is not possible, the notice is sent via the Philippine Postal Corporation (PHLPost).
- Proof: To prove receipt in court, the complainant must present:
- The Registry Receipt issued by the post office at the time of mailing.
- The Registry Return Card signed by the addressee or their authorized representative.
- If the return card is unavailable, a Certification from the Postmaster is required.
Note: A "Notice of Dishonor" sent via a private courier (like LBC or Grab) is often scrutinized. Without the specific protections afforded to "Registered Mail" under the Rules of Court, the complainant must provide extra testimony to prove actual receipt.
4. The Five-Day Grace Period
The law grants the issuer five (5) banking days from the date of receipt of the notice to settle the obligation.
- Effect of Payment: If the issuer pays within this window, the "presumption of knowledge" is negated, and they cannot be held liable under B.P. 22.
- Effect of Non-Payment: If the five days lapse without payment, the presumption of knowledge is established, and the complainant may proceed to file a formal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 or Estafa.
5. Distinction: B.P. 22 vs. Estafa
While a Notice of Dishonor is a statutory requirement to establish the presumption of knowledge in B.P. 22, it serves a different purpose in Estafa (Art. 315, par. 2[d]).
In Estafa, the "deceit" must exist at the time the check is issued (i.e., the check was used as the means to obtain money or property). While a notice of dishonor is still highly recommended to prove the intent to defraud, the core of the crime is the fraudulent inducement, not merely the act of issuing a funded-less check.
6. Summary Table: Notice of Dishonor Checklist
| Requirement | Description |
|---|---|
| Format | Must be in writing (Letter of Demand). |
| Timing | Sent after the bank returns the check with a "Notice of Dishonor" or "Debit Memo." |
| Content | Explicit demand for payment and details of the dishonored check. |
| Receipt | Must be received by the issuer; proof of receipt is mandatory for court. |
| Grace Period | 5 banking days from receipt to settle the amount. |
7. Jurisprudential Reminder
The Supreme Court has frequently acquitted accused individuals because the prosecution failed to prove the actual receipt of the notice of dishonor. It is not enough to show that the notice was sent; one must prove it was received by the issuer or an authorized agent. In the absence of this proof, the "presumption of knowledge" does not arise, and the case for B.P. 22 often collapses.