I. Introduction

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the “Bouncing Checks Law,” penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check that is later dishonored for certain causes—most commonly, insufficiency of funds or credit. In practice, the hardest questions arise not from a simple one-person checking account, but from joint bank accounts where multiple individuals are authorized signatories and where account arrangements vary (e.g., “AND” signatures required; “OR” signatures allowed; corporate-style two-signature rules; and special bank mandates).

This article focuses on who is criminally liable under BP 22 when a check is drawn from a joint account and the check bounces: the actual signatory, the non-signing co-depositor, and situations involving multiple signatories and internal agreements.

II. BP 22 in Overview: What the Law Punishes

A. The act penalized

BP 22 punishes a person who:

Makes/draws and issues a check;
Knowing at the time of issuance that the drawer does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for payment upon presentment; and
The check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds/credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had the drawer not, without valid cause, ordered a stop payment.

The law is designed to protect the integrity of checks as a medium of exchange and maintain confidence in commercial transactions.

B. Dishonor and the notice requirement

Even if a check is dishonored, BP 22 liability typically hinges on compliance with the statutory mechanism that:

The drawer must receive written notice of dishonor, and
The drawer is given five (5) banking days from receipt of notice to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for full payment.

Failure to pay within that period supports the statutory inference of knowledge of insufficiency at issuance.

C. BP 22 is malum prohibitum

BP 22 is generally treated as malum prohibitum: the prohibited act itself is penalized to protect public interest, and intent to defraud is not the core inquiry. That said, the notice of dishonor and the opportunity to make good the check are central due-process safeguards.

III. Joint Accounts: Basic Banking Structures That Matter

Joint accounts are not all the same. Liability analysis begins by identifying the bank mandate governing check issuance:

“AND” joint account (two/all signatures required) A check is valid only if all required signatories sign it (e.g., “A and B” must sign).
“OR” joint account (either signature sufficient) Any one signatory may issue a check alone.
Hybrid mandates (e.g., any two of three; or amounts above a threshold require two signatures) Common in partnerships, family arrangements, and quasi-corporate setups.
Agency/authority overlays One party may be the real manager of funds; another is included as a formality. This may matter in civil disputes, but BP 22 focuses on the statutory elements and the act of issuance.

The crucial point: BP 22 targets the act of issuing a check, not mere co-ownership of funds.

IV. The Core Rule: Who Is Criminally Liable Under BP 22 for a Joint-Account Check?

A. Primary liability rests on the person who actually signed and issued the check

In the Philippine setting, the dominant approach is straightforward:

The signatory who made/drew and issued the check is the person who can be held criminally liable under BP 22, because issuance is the act penalized.
A co-depositor or co-account holder who did not sign the check is generally not criminally liable under BP 22 merely because the account is joint or because the check is drawn against funds that are jointly owned.

Why: Criminal liability is personal. BP 22’s prohibited act—drawing and issuing a check—requires a concrete act attributable to a specific person. A non-signing joint account holder did not “issue” the check.

B. Joint account status does not automatically create “shared” BP 22 criminal liability

A joint account is a banking relationship; it does not by itself create criminal culpability for checks issued by another. “Jointness” may create shared civil exposure in certain contexts, but BP 22 is not a partnership-liability statute.

Even in “AND” accounts, the legal question stays tethered to issuance:

If a check requires both signatures and only one signs, the check may be invalid as against the bank mandate—yet the analysis under BP 22 may still focus on whether a check was issued, presented, and dishonored, and whether the statutory elements are met as to the person whose signature appears and who put the check into circulation.

C. If multiple required signatories actually signed, each signing issuer may face exposure

Where the account mandate requires two signatures and both (or all required) signatories sign, then each signatory can be treated as having participated in the issuance. In that scenario:

Each signatory may be considered an “issuer” for BP 22 purposes, because each signature contributes to the act of making the check a valid instrument under the mandate.

However, courts typically still require proof of the statutory elements as to each accused, including notice of dishonor and failure to make good within the legal period.

V. Notice of Dishonor in Joint-Account Cases: Who Must Receive Notice?

A. Notice must be given to the person charged as drawer/issuer

BP 22 prosecutions commonly fail when written notice of dishonor is not properly proven. In a joint-account scenario, this becomes more sensitive because complainants sometimes:

Address notice to “the account holders,” or
Serve notice on a spouse/partner who is not the signatory, or
Assume one notice to one joint holder binds all.

The better legal framing is:

Notice must be received by the accused signatory being prosecuted, because the five-banking-day period is the accused’s opportunity to avoid criminal liability by making good the check.

B. Practical outcomes

If a complainant notifies only the non-signing joint holder and prosecutes the signing holder, the case is vulnerable.
If the complainant notifies only one co-signatory but charges both, the unnotified signatory’s case is vulnerable.

VI. “Knowledge” and the Presumption: Joint Accounts Create Common Fact Patterns

A. Knowledge is inferred from non-payment after notice

A key feature of BP 22 practice is that knowledge of insufficiency is often inferred when:

The check bounces;
The accused receives written notice; and
The accused fails to pay within five banking days.

This structure can be harsh in joint accounts where:

A signatory issues a check believing the other co-holder will fund the account, or
The signatory expects a deposit that does not arrive, or
Another co-holder withdraws funds unexpectedly.

B. Reliance on a co-holder is not a full defense to BP 22

Reliance on a spouse, partner, or business associate to keep the account funded is usually treated as a private arrangement that does not negate the legal consequences of issuing a check that is dishonored and not made good after notice.

BP 22 is designed to place a burden on the issuer to avoid putting bad checks into circulation.

C. But factual nuances can still matter

Joint-account realities can matter in:

Assessing whether the issuer truly issued the check (e.g., forged signature, unauthorized issuance),
Evaluating whether notice was properly received,
Establishing whether dishonor was for reasons covered by BP 22 (e.g., account closed; payment stopped; irregularities),
Determining whether the accused had a “valid cause” for stop payment (in stop-payment situations), and
Sentencing and mitigation.

VII. Common Joint-Account Scenarios and Likely BP 22 Outcomes

Scenario 1: “OR” account; only A signs; check bounces

Likely liable: A (the signatory/issuer), assuming all elements (dishonor, notice, failure to pay) are proven.
Unlikely liable: B (non-signing joint holder), absent proof B issued or caused issuance.

Scenario 2: “AND” account requires A and B; both sign; check bounces

Potentially liable: Both A and B, if each is charged and each received notice and failed to pay within five banking days.
If notice is proven only against one, the other’s prosecution is vulnerable.

Scenario 3: “AND” account requires A and B; only A signs; bank dishonors due to missing signature

BP 22 typically focuses on checks dishonored due to insufficiency of funds/credit, or stop-payment under the law’s framework.
Dishonor due to irregularity / missing signature may fall outside the core “insufficient funds/credit” basis unless the facts show it is essentially a covered ground (this depends on how the bank’s dishonor reason is recorded and proven).
In practice, cases are stronger when dishonor reason is squarely “DAIF/insufficient funds” (or equivalent) or when stop payment without valid cause triggers the statute’s coverage.

Scenario 4: A signs; B withdraws funds before presentment; check bounces

Likely liable: A (issuer), because issuance and failure to make good after notice are pinned to A.
Possible civil disputes: A may pursue reimbursement or damages against B, depending on their agreements, but that does not automatically erase BP 22 exposure.

Scenario 5: A signs as accommodation for B (check issued for B’s obligation); check bounces

Likely liable: A, because BP 22 punishes issuance of the check, not who ultimately benefits.
Accommodation or “I issued it for someone else” is generally not a shield.

Scenario 6: Forged signature on joint account; check bounces

Not liable under BP 22: The person whose signature is forged (no issuance by that person).
Possible liability: The forger (if identified) under other criminal laws, and potentially BP 22 if the forger is treated as issuer and the elements are met, though prosecution often proceeds under forgery/estafa-related provisions depending on the facts.

VIII. BP 22 vs. Civil Liability and Internal Joint-Account Arrangements

A. BP 22 is criminal; civil consequences may still follow

Even if criminal liability attaches only to the signing issuer, the underlying transaction may still generate:

Civil liability for the amount of the obligation (e.g., loan, purchase price), potentially enforceable against persons who are parties to the contract.
Civil disputes between joint account holders (e.g., reimbursement, contribution, damages, accounting).

B. Co-ownership of funds does not equal co-authorship of a check

Civil law can recognize shared ownership of deposits, but BP 22 is concerned with the act of placing a check into commerce that is dishonored.

C. Joint account agreements cannot waive BP 22 consequences

Private arrangements—“you maintain the balance,” “you will fund checks I issue,” “we split responsibility”—may allocate risk internally, but they do not negate the statutory policy that discourages the issuance of unfunded checks.

IX. Evidentiary Issues That Commonly Decide Joint-Account BP 22 Cases

A. Proof of issuance by the accused

The prosecution must show that the accused made/drew and issued the check:

Signature authenticity becomes critical when multiple signatories exist.
Bank signature cards and specimen signatures may be relevant.

B. Proof of dishonor for a BP 22-covered reason

The dishonor memo/return slip and bank testimony or certification often establish the reason:

“Insufficient funds,” “DAIF,” “insufficient credit,” or the local bank’s equivalent coding.
Stop payment scenarios can be covered depending on circumstances.

C. Proof of written notice of dishonor and receipt

This is frequently the battleground:

Registered mail receipts, personal service acknowledgments, and testimony must align.
In joint accounts, serving notice on a different co-holder than the accused is a common pitfall.

D. Proof of failure to pay within five banking days

Payment or settlement within the period can defeat the statutory inference and often derails prosecution. Partial payments generally do not cure a bounced check unless the check is fully covered or acceptable arrangements for full payment are made.

X. Strategic Considerations in Charging Decisions (Complainant and Prosecutor Perspective)

A. Avoid “shotgun” charging of all account holders

Charging everyone named on the account regardless of signature invites dismissal as to non-signers and can complicate the case.

B. Charge the signatory(ies) whose signatures appear and who participated in issuance

Where multiple signatures appear and are required, the complainant typically targets each participating signatory—provided notice and other elements can be established for each.

C. Align the notice with the intended accused

A complainant should ensure that notice is addressed and served in a way that can be proven as received by the party being charged.

XI. Defenses and Mitigating Arguments Common in Joint-Account Situations

A. Lack of proper notice of dishonor

A strong procedural defense if the accused did not receive written notice or receipt is not proven.

B. Not the issuer

Signature is forged or unauthorized.
Check was not issued by the accused (lost checkbook, stolen checks, or similar).

C. Dishonor not for a BP 22-covered reason

Where dishonor is for reasons like irregularity, mismatch, stale check, or missing required signatures, the connection to BP 22’s core premise may be contested depending on the proof.

D. Full payment within five banking days from receipt of notice

This is among the most practical ways to avert criminal exposure if done timely and provably.

E. “Stop payment” with valid cause (context-dependent)

If the dishonor results from stop payment, the accused may argue valid cause (e.g., failure of consideration, defective goods) though the success of such arguments can be fact-specific and heavily litigated.

XII. Sentencing, Penalties, and Practical Consequences

BP 22 penalties historically involve fine and/or imprisonment within statutory limits, but Philippine practice in many cases emphasizes fines and settlement dynamics. Conviction can also carry significant collateral consequences:

Reputation and creditworthiness harm,
Difficulty in banking relationships,
Potential civil judgment for the amount of the obligation,
Compromise and settlement negotiations often occur alongside criminal proceedings, though compromise does not automatically erase criminal liability unless it meets legal requirements and the case posture allows it.

In joint accounts, these consequences tend to fall most heavily on the signatory issuer, regardless of internal fairness between co-holders—reinforcing why co-signing checks is treated as a serious responsibility.

XIII. Best Practices for Joint Account Holders and Signatories

Understand the bank mandate (“AND” vs “OR”, thresholds, two-of-three rules).
Treat check signing as personal exposure under BP 22.
Monitor balances and holds and consider timing of deposits versus presentment risk.
Control access to checkbooks and protect unused checks.
Document internal funding agreements to support reimbursement claims between co-holders (civil side).
Act immediately upon notice of dishonor—the five banking days matter.
Prefer safer payment methods (bank transfer, manager’s check) for high-value transactions if cash flow timing is uncertain.

XIV. Key Takeaways

BP 22 liability attaches primarily to the person who signed and issued the check.
Non-signing joint account holders are generally not criminally liable under BP 22 merely because the account is joint.
If multiple required signatories sign, each may be exposed, but each accused must still be proven to have met the statute’s elements, including receipt of written notice and failure to pay within five banking days.
Joint-account internal arrangements do not excuse issuance of a check that bounces and is not made good after notice.
In joint-account cases, outcomes often turn on proof of issuance, reason for dishonor, and strict proof of written notice and receipt.