POSSIBLE ARREST DURING A BP 22 HEARING IN THE PHILIPPINES

A comprehensive doctrinal and procedural guide

1. Statutory Framework

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22)—the “Bouncing Checks Law” (approved April 3 1982)—penalises the making, drawing or issuing of any check that is subsequently dishonoured for insufficiency of funds or a closed/ostensible account. Penalty: imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year or a fine of ₱ 200 to double the check amount (or both, at the court’s discretion). Despite later policy statements favouring fines, BP 22 remains a penal statute; arrest and incarceration are therefore legally possible at several procedural junctures.

2. Criminal Procedure Overview

Stage	Key Rules	Potential for Arrest?
(a) Filing & inquest/pre-filing investigation	Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure; NPS Rules on Inquest	Yes—in inquest cases the prosecutor may already have custody of the respondent; a commitment order or inquest-court warrant can issue.
(b) Filing of Information in court	Art. III §2, 1987 Constitution; Rule 112 §6	Summons by default (per SC A.C. No. 12-2000; A.C. No. 13-2001) but warrant possible if the judge finds necessity or the accused disregards the summons.
(c) Arraignment & pre-trial	Rule 116; Rule 118	Yes—bench warrant for non-appearance or non-compliance with bail conditions.
(d) Trial	Rule 119	Limited—contempt-based arrest for disruptive conduct; bench warrant if on bail and repeatedly absent.
(e) Promulgation of judgment & execution	Rule 120 §6; Rule 122 §6	Immediate arrest upon conviction if the penalty involves imprisonment and the accused has not posted bail pending appeal.

3. Summons versus Arrest Warrant at the Outset

3.1 Supreme Court Administrative Circulars

Circular	Essence	Effect
A.C. No. 12-2000 (June 21 2000)	“Imprisonment is no longer the automatic penalty of choice in BP 22”; courts to give preference to fines.	Judges should issue a summons—not a warrant—unless there are compelling reasons.
A.C. No. 13-2001 (February 14 2001)	Clarifies that A.C. 12-2000 did not repeal the penal nature of BP 22.	The judge retains power to issue a warrant when: (1) the accused is a flight risk; (2) fails to respond to summons; (3) cannot be located.

Practical result: In most BP 22 cases the accused first receives a summons. Arrest occurs only after non-compliance or a judicial finding that a warrant is necessary to secure jurisdiction.

4. Typical Arrest Scenarios Inside a BP 22 Case

In-quest arrest – If the drawer is caught while attempting to leave or is already in police custody (e.g. arrested on a separate warrant), an inquest prosecutor may file the case without preliminary investigation; the court can then issue a commitment order.
Arrest by original warrant – Rare but possible when:
- the address is doubtful / the accused is an expatriate;
- flight risk is apparent (e.g. check issued immediately before departure);
- multiple BP 22 charges show a pattern of evasion.
Bench warrant – The most common:
- Failure to appear at arraignment, pre-trial, or trial despite due notice;
- Failure to post bail within a period fixed by the court;
- Violation of bail conditions (e.g. leaving jurisdiction without permission).
Contempt-related arrest – Disruptive or disrespectful behaviour during hearing (Rule 71); judge may order respondent taken into custody on contempt.
Post-conviction arrest – Upon promulgation of judgment imposing imprisonment, the accused may be taken into custody immediately (Rule 120 §6) unless (a) the judgment is appealable and (b) he secures bail for the appeal.
Warrantless (citizen’s or police) arrest – Extremely rare in BP 22; theoretically possible in flagrante delicto only if the check is issued in the officer’s presence and the dishonour is already known (virtually impossible because dishonour is learned only upon presentment). Courts frown on such arrests (People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 99366, Apr 5 1994).

5. Bail, Recognisance, and Release Options

Constitutional right to bail (Art. III §13) because BP 22’s penalty does not exceed six years.
Judges often set recommended bail per count, usually ranging from ₱ 6 000 to ₱ 12 000, but may consider the aggregate amount of all checks.
Travel bond / hold-departure orders possible if flight risk is shown.
Recognisance (signing by a responsible person) is discretionary but often allowed for first-time offenders or minimal amounts.
Interim release under Administrative Circular 12-94 may be invoked if detention exceeds the statutory maximum before judgment.

6. Rights of an Accused Arrested During the Proceedings

To be informed of the cause of arrest and to demand the warrant.
To remain silent and to counsel immediately (Art. III §12).
To bail as a matter of right before conviction.
To challenge the legality of arrest via a Motion to Quash Warrant / Information before entering a plea (Rule 117 §1(a)).
To speedy trial; unjustified postponements after arrest may be ground for dismissal (Rule 119 §3; People v. Sandigan, G.R. No. 115415, Mar 28 2000).

7. Notable Jurisprudence

Case	G.R. No.	Date	Holding Relevant to Arrest
Vaca v. CA	131018	Nov 16 1998	Reiterated that imprisonment is a valid BP 22 penalty; but courts should weigh moral culpability and intent.
Ong v. People	143706	Jan 20 2004	Summons rather than warrant is consistent with A.C. 12-2000; arrest warrant valid only if summons ignored.
Nagrampa v. People	173954	Jul 30 2013	Bench warrant proper after repeated absences; accused cannot demand new arraignment when absence was deliberate.
Lim v. People	153588	Mar 5 2008	Post-conviction immediate arrest upheld; bail after conviction is discretionary.
Aguas v. People	195689	Feb 27 2013	Quashal of information for illegal arrest waived when accused pleaded without objecting.

8. Practical Guidance for Practitioners

Advise clients to receive and obey the summons. Failure triggers bench warrant issuance.
Prepare bail documents (cash, surety, or property bond) before first appearance to avoid temporary detention.
Monitor court dates rigorously; even one missed hearing may result in a bench warrant.
File Motion to Recall Bench Warrant promptly, explaining absence (medical emergency, etc.) and attaching evidence.
Explore settlement and restitution. Full payment plus charges may persuade the court to impose only a fine and dispense with incarceration (see A.C. 12-2000 policy).
Warn about hold-departure orders. Courts increasingly issue HDOs simultaneously with warrants in BP 22 to prevent flight.

9. Conclusion

While BP 22 is often perceived as a “fine-only” offence after the Supreme Court’s policy circulars, arrest remains an ever-present procedural reality. A respondent may feel the handcuffs at five key points: inquest, failure to obey summons, non-appearance at hearings, contemptuous conduct, and post-conviction execution. Familiarity with the administrative circulars, vigilance in attending hearings, and proactive compliance with bail requirements are the surest safeguards against arrest in a BP 22 prosecution.

Prepared as of 27 June 2025, reflecting the latest Rules of Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court circulars.