Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), enacted on April 3, 1979 and otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, remains the principal statute criminalizing the issuance of checks without sufficient funds or credit. The law was designed to safeguard the integrity of the banking system, promote confidence in commercial paper, and protect payees and holders from the disruptive effects of worthless checks in everyday trade and credit transactions. It applies to both individuals and corporate officers who sign or issue checks on behalf of juridical entities. Violations carry both criminal and civil repercussions, enforced rigorously by Philippine courts.

Elements of the Offense Under BP 22

Section 1 of BP 22 defines the punishable act as the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issuance that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for its full payment upon presentment. The check must thereafter be dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for that reason had the drawer not ordered the bank to stop payment without any valid cause.

The three indispensable elements are:

The accused made, drew, and issued the check;
The check was issued to apply on account or for value (not as a mere gift or accommodation without consideration); and
Subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds or credit, or improper stop-payment order.

BP 22 is a special penal law classified as malum prohibitum. Good faith, lack of intent to defraud, or absence of damage to the payee need not be proven by the prosecution once the elements are established. The offense is consummated upon issuance coupled with the dishonor and the drawer’s failure to make good the check after proper notice.

Prima Facie Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds

Section 2 creates a rebuttable presumption: the making, drawing, and issuance of a check refused by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit, when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency unless the drawer pays the holder the full amount due or makes arrangements for full payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.

The 90-day presentment period is critical. Presentment beyond this window does not trigger the statutory presumption, although the prosecution may still prove actual knowledge through direct evidence such as prior warnings, account statements, or admissions. The five-day period runs exclusively from actual receipt of the notice of dishonor, not from the date the notice was mailed or sent.

Notice of Dishonor Requirements

To activate the presumption, the holder must send a written notice of dishonor to the drawer. Acceptable modes include personal delivery, registered mail with return card, or courier with proof of receipt. Jurisprudence consistently holds that mere proof of sending is insufficient; actual receipt or the legal presumption of receipt under the Rules of Court (e.g., registered mail with unclaimed return card properly documented) must be established in evidence. Failure to prove receipt defeats the presumption, shifting the burden back to the prosecution to prove knowledge by other means.

Criminal Penalties

The penalty prescribed by Section 1 is imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year, or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment, at the sound discretion of the court.

Courts commonly calibrate the penalty according to the face value of the check, the drawer’s financial capacity, whether the violation is a first offense, and any showing of good faith or partial payment. For checks of small amounts, courts frequently impose only the fine. For larger amounts, both fine and imprisonment are not uncommon. The P200,000 ceiling on the fine applies regardless of the check’s face value; thus, even a check for P1,000,000 carries a maximum fine of only P200,000 under BP 22.

If the fine is imposed and remains unpaid, subsidiary imprisonment attaches in accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code. Corporate violators face fines on the corporation itself, while the signing officers incur personal criminal liability.

Civil Liabilities

Independent of criminal liability, the drawer remains fully civilly liable under the Negotiable Instruments Law and the Civil Code. The holder may recover:

The face value of the check;
Legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of written demand or judicial demand until full payment;
Attorney’s fees (usually 10–25% of the amount, if stipulated or proven reasonable);
Moral damages where bad faith or malice is shown;
Exemplary damages in cases of wanton or oppressive conduct; and
Costs of suit.

The civil action may be instituted separately, reserved in the criminal case, or deemed instituted unless expressly reserved. Full payment of the civil obligation after the five-day period does not extinguish the criminal case, although it may be considered a mitigating circumstance during sentencing.

Jurisdiction, Procedure, and Prosecution

BP 22 cases fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, regardless of the amount involved. Venue lies where the check was issued, delivered, presented for payment, or dishonored.

The usual procedure begins with the filing of a sworn complaint-affidavit before the prosecutor’s office. Because the maximum penalty does not exceed six years, the case is subject to the simplified rules under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. After preliminary investigation or inquest (if the accused is arrested), an information is filed in the appropriate trial court. Arraignment follows, and trial proceeds summarily.

The offense is bailable as a matter of right. Bail is routinely set at P6,000 to P12,000 depending on the court and amount. Conviction carries a criminal record that may affect future employment, government licensing, or public office eligibility.

Available Defenses

Common valid defenses include:

Absence or non-receipt of notice of dishonor;
Presentment of the check beyond the 90-day period (defeating the presumption);
Sufficient funds in the account at the exact time of issuance (overcoming the presumption with bank certification);
Valid stop-payment order (e.g., defective goods, breach of contract, or fraud by the payee, supported by evidence);
The check was not issued for value or was an accommodation check without consideration;
Payment or full arrangement for payment within the five banking days after actual receipt of notice;
Forgery of signature or lack of authority (in corporate checks);
Prescription (four years from the date the crime was discovered, typically from dishonor or notice).

Payment after the five-day period but before arraignment may still mitigate the penalty or support a motion for suspension of proceedings under certain court guidelines, but does not automatically dismiss the criminal case.

Related Offenses and Overlapping Liabilities

A single act of issuing a bouncing check may also constitute estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code if deceit and damage are proven. Estafa carries heavier penalties scaled to the amount (prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum or higher), plus full indemnity. Prosecutors often file both BP 22 and estafa charges, and courts have ruled that the offenses have distinct elements, allowing separate prosecutions without double jeopardy.

Banks may also impose internal sanctions: after repeated dishonors (typically three), the drawee bank may close the account and report the drawer to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The drawer’s name may appear on the industry-wide “blacklist” maintained by the Bankers Association of the Philippines, severely restricting future check-writing privileges nationwide.

Credit bureaus record BP 22 violations, adversely affecting loan applications, credit cards, and business reputation. For government employees or licensed professionals, conviction may trigger separate administrative proceedings for dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to the service.

Practical and Long-Term Consequences

Beyond court-imposed penalties, bouncing checks trigger cascading effects: loss of supplier trust, strained business relationships, difficulty in securing credit facilities, and potential inclusion in watch lists that affect international travel or immigration if arrest warrants remain outstanding. Repeated violations can lead to permanent damage to the drawer’s standing in the financial community.

BP 22 continues to be strictly enforced to maintain the reliability of checks as a medium of exchange. While legislative proposals to raise the fine ceiling in line with inflation or to decriminalize small-value checks have been discussed over the years, the core provisions and penalties of the 1979 law remain unchanged and fully operative.

This comprehensive legal framework underscores the Philippine state’s policy of treating the issuance of bouncing checks as both a criminal wrong against public order and a civil wrong against private parties, with layered sanctions designed to deter the practice while providing full reparation to affected holders.