A “bouncing check” (talbog / tumalbog na tseke) is a check that the bank refuses to pay upon presentment—most commonly because the account has insufficient funds, insufficient credit, is closed, or because a stop-payment order was placed. In the Philippines, bouncing checks can trigger criminal prosecution, civil liability, and practical financial consequences (account closure, collection suits, credit and reputational fallout).

This article focuses on the main Philippine legal framework: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, and how it intersects with estafa under the Revised Penal Code and civil remedies.

1) The Main Law: BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

What BP 22 punishes

BP 22 penalizes the act of making and issuing a check that is later dishonored by the bank due to:

Insufficient funds or insufficient credit, or
A stop-payment order without valid reason, when the check would otherwise have been dishonored, or
Other fund-related grounds that effectively show the check could not be funded when presented (e.g., account closed—often treated as strong evidence of lack of funds/credit).

Why BP 22 is serious: it’s “malum prohibitum”

BP 22 is generally treated as a regulatory offense (malum prohibitum). In practical terms:

The case does not hinge on proving intent to defraud.
The law focuses on the issuance of a worthless check and the disruption it causes to commercial trust.

2) Elements of a BP 22 Offense

A typical BP 22 case requires proof of these core elements:

The accused made, drew, and issued a check
- The person charged is usually the signatory (the one who signed the check), because signing is the act of issuance.
The check was issued “to apply on account or for value”
- In real life, this covers most checks given in payment of an obligation, purchase, loan, services, rentals, etc.
- Even checks issued as “guarantee,” “security,” or “collateral” can still fall under BP 22 depending on the circumstances—labels alone don’t always remove BP 22 exposure.
The bank dishonored the check upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds/credit (or equivalent fund-related reason, including some stop-payment situations).
Knowledge of insufficient funds/credit at the time of issuance
- This is often established by a statutory presumption (explained next).

3) The “Notice of Dishonor” and the 5-Banking-Day Rule (Critical)

Notice of dishonor is usually make-or-break

In many prosecutions, the most contested issue is whether the issuer received notice that the check bounced.

General principle: The prosecution typically needs to show the issuer received notice of dishonor and still failed to make it good within the legally relevant period.

The 5 banking days to pay

BP 22 provides a key window: if, within five (5) banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor, the issuer pays the amount of the check or makes arrangements satisfactory to the holder, this can defeat the law’s presumption of knowledge (and is often used as a defense).

Best practice for the payee/holder

Because receipt matters, a payee who plans to file BP 22 should keep proof that the issuer received the notice, such as:

Personal service with signed acknowledgment,
Courier with proof of delivery,
Registered mail with registry receipts and tracking/delivery information (and other admissible proof of receipt).

4) The 90-Day Presentment and the Presumption of Knowledge

BP 22 includes a presumption mechanism commonly summarized like this:

If the check is presented within 90 days from its date and is dishonored for insufficiency, and
The issuer fails to pay within 5 banking days after receiving notice of dishonor,

…then knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed.

Important nuance:

Presentment beyond 90 days does not automatically erase liability, but it can weaken the presumption; the case may then depend more heavily on other evidence of knowledge.

5) Penalties Under BP 22

Courts have discretion in penalties. As commonly applied, BP 22 allows:

Imprisonment (often described as ranging from 30 days to 1 year), or
Fine (often described as up to double the amount of the check, subject to a statutory cap commonly cited at ₱200,000), or
Both, at the court’s discretion.

Practical reality in many cases

Philippine courts have, over time, often leaned toward imposing fines (especially for smaller amounts and first-time offenders), but jail remains legally possible, particularly for aggravating circumstances (multiple counts, repeated conduct, larger amounts, bad faith indicators, refusal to settle, etc.).

6) One Bounced Check = One Criminal Case (Often Multiple Counts)

Each dishonored check generally corresponds to a separate count. Issuing ten bouncing checks can mean ten BP 22 cases, with cumulative exposure (including higher total fines and multiple proceedings).

7) BP 22 vs Estafa (Revised Penal Code): What’s the Difference?

BP 22

Focus: issuance of a worthless check and its dishonor.
Intent to defraud: not essential in many BP 22 analyses.
Damage to the payee: not always the central element; the law protects the banking/check system and commercial reliance.

Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check (commonly tied to Article 315)

Focus: deceit and damage.
Usually requires proof that the accused used the check as a means to defraud—e.g., the check was used to obtain money/goods, and the victim relied on it.
The factual timing matters (e.g., whether the check induced the victim to part with money/property at that moment).

Can you be charged with both?

It can happen because BP 22 and estafa have different legal elements. Whether both will prosper depends heavily on the facts and the evidence of deceit and damage for estafa.

8) Civil Liability: Paying the Check Amount Is Still on the Table

Even if a BP 22 case is criminal, the issuer can still face:

A civil action to collect the value of the check, plus
Interest, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs (depending on proof and the court’s findings).

A payee may also pursue civil remedies separately (collection case) depending on procedural choices and strategy.

Key point

Payment or settlement does not automatically erase criminal liability, but it can:

Prevent prosecution from being filed (if resolved early),
Weaken the complainant’s willingness/ability to proceed,
Be considered by the court in penalty (mitigation), and
Resolve the civil aspect.

9) Typical Process: From Bounce to Case

Check is deposited/presented to the bank.
Bank issues a dishonor/return memo indicating the reason (e.g., DAIF/insufficient funds).
Payee sends notice of dishonor/demand to the issuer and keeps proof of receipt.
If unpaid after the relevant period, payee files a complaint-affidavit (often with the prosecutor’s office; sometimes directly in court depending on local practice and the nature of the case).
The case proceeds in court if probable cause is found and an information/complaint is filed.

Because procedure can vary by locality and by how the complaint is lodged, parties usually benefit from counsel early—especially where there are multiple checks or defenses about notice/receipt.

10) Common Defenses and Issues in BP 22

These are frequently litigated themes:

A) No valid proof of receipt of notice of dishonor

If the prosecution cannot prove the issuer received notice, the case may fail.

B) Paid within 5 banking days after receipt of notice

Paying promptly can defeat the presumption of knowledge and is a common defense posture.

C) The accused did not “issue” the check

Forged signature, unauthorized signatory, or mistaken identity defenses.

D) Dishonor not due to insufficiency attributable to the accused

Bank error, wrongful dishonor, or demonstrably sufficient funds/credit at presentment (rare but possible with proof).

E) Stop-payment had a valid reason

Example: check was lost/stolen, underlying transaction was fraudulent, or there was a legally justifiable basis—facts matter.

F) Presentment timing and presumption issues

Late presentment can complicate the presumption; the case may depend on other evidence.

11) Corporate Checks: Who Goes to Court?

For corporate checks, criminal exposure generally falls on:

The person who signed the check (the authorized signatory).

Corporations act through individuals; a non-signing officer is not automatically criminally liable just because of a position or title. Civil liability may still involve the corporation depending on the underlying obligation.

12) Practical Consequences Beyond Court

Even without a conviction, bounced checks can trigger:

Bank account closure and internal bank reporting,
Business relationship fallout,
Higher scrutiny from counterparties,
Collection efforts (demand letters, collection suits),
Potential employment/professional consequences in sensitive roles.

13) Practical Guidance

If you issued a check that bounced (or might bounce)

Act immediately upon learning of dishonor.
Pay or fund the account and coordinate with the holder.
Keep written proof of payment, receipts, and communications.
If there is a genuine dispute over the underlying obligation, seek counsel—strategies differ if you are challenging the debt vs. merely curing the bounce.

If you received a bounced check

Keep the original check and the bank return memo.
Send a written notice of dishonor/demand and preserve proof of receipt.
Document all timelines and communications.
Consider whether you want (a) payment ASAP, (b) civil collection, (c) BP 22 filing, or (d) a combined strategy.

14) Prescription (Time Limits) and Timing Risk

Criminal cases under special laws often have prescriptive periods set by general prescription statutes for special offenses. In many BP 22 discussions, a four (4) year prescriptive period is commonly invoked, but prescription analysis can be technical (it may depend on when the offense is deemed committed and when proceedings are instituted). If timing is close, get advice quickly.

15) Frequently Asked Questions

“If I pay later, will the BP 22 case go away?”

Payment helps a lot in practice, but it does not automatically erase criminal liability once a case is properly in motion. It can, however, affect settlement, evidence, and penalties.

“What if the check was only a ‘guarantee’?”

Calling it a guarantee does not necessarily remove BP 22 exposure. Courts look at the real function of the check and the transaction context.

“Can I go to jail for BP 22?”

Yes, it is legally possible. Many cases result in fines, but incarceration remains within the court’s power depending on the circumstances and the court’s discretion.

“Is a demand letter required?”

In practice, proof of notice of dishonor (often via demand/notice letter) is crucial, because it connects to the presumption of knowledge and the 5-banking-day opportunity to pay.

Closing Note

Bouncing check cases are deceptively technical—often turning on proof of notice, receipt, banking timelines, and the paper trail. If you want, you can paste (1) the timeline of events and (2) the exact reason for dishonor shown in the bank memo, and I can help you map the likely BP 22 issues and the strongest practical next steps (issuer-side or payee-side).