Prescription of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“Bouncing Checks Law”) Offenses:
What Happens When Seven Years Have Elapsed?
Executive Summary
Under Philippine law, a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“BP 22”) ordinarily prescribes (is permanently barred) four (4) years after the offense is deemed to have been committed.7 years only becomes relevant in two opposite situations:
- Too late to sue. If no complaint was filed within 4 years, a charge brought after 7 years (or any time beyond 4 years) must be dismissed for having prescribed.
- Still prosecutable. If some prosecutorial or judicial proceeding was started within the 4-year window, prescription is interrupted and the case may go on—or even be revived—well beyond 7 years.
The article below explains why this is so, traces the statutory basis, and walks through common litigation scenarios.
1. The Legal Framework
| Source | Key Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| BP 22 (1979) | § 1 fixes the penalty: imprisonment of 30 days – 1 year or fine of double the amount of the check (₱ but not > ₱200 000) or both. | The maximum imprisonment is 1 year, so BP 22 falls within the lowest sentencing bracket under R.A. 3326. |
| Republic Act No. 3326 (1961) – “Prescription of Offenses under Special Laws” | § 1(c): Offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than one (1) year, or by a fine only (or both) prescribe in four (4) years. § 2: The period is tolled (stopped) by filing “proceedings against the guilty person” and starts to run again only if the case is dismissed without jeopardy. |
Because BP 22 is a special law and sets no prescription period of its own, R.A. 3326 governs. |
| Art. 90, Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Prescription rules for RPC felonies (not special-law offenses). | Shown here only to contrast; BP 22 is not governed by Art. 90. |
| Art. 91, RPC (still persuasive) | Prescriptive period begins on the day the crime is discovered; is interrupted by filing a complaint or information; suspension while accused is absent from the Philippines. | By analogy, Supreme Court cases apply the same principles to R.A. 3326. |
2. When Does the Four-Year Clock Begin?
A BP 22 offense is complete only after the drawer (issuer) fails to pay or make arrangements within five (5) banking days from receipt of written notice of dishonor. Therefore:
- Date of issuance of the check → irrelevant as starting point.
- Date the drawer receives notice → add 5 banking days → day “X.”
- Day “X” = the “commission” of the offense for prescription purposes.
Lozano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 107651 (16 June 1994) and its progeny treat the absence of payment during the 5-day grace period as the last element that consummates the crime; prescription cannot start earlier.
3. Interruption (Tolling) of Prescription
| Act/Event | Effect |
|---|---|
| Filing of a sworn complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor | Interrupts prescription on filing date, even if the Information is filed in court years later (People v. Olarte doctrine, applied to BP 22 in Lozano, Cruz v. People, G.R. 187266, 26 April 2017). |
| Filing of an Information in the trial court | Also interrupts (obviously). |
| Dismissal/withdrawal of the complaint before arraignment, or nolle prosequi | Clock starts to run again; any fresh complaint must be filed with whatever remains of the 4-year period. |
| Accused absconds or lives abroad | Clock is suspended while absent (R.A. 3326 § 2, mirroring Art. 91 RPC). |
| Pending petition for review in DOJ or appeal to Secretary of Justice | Generally considered part of “proceedings,” so the clock stays stopped. |
4. Seven-Year Scenarios: A Practical Matrix
| Scenario | Within 4-Year Window? | Case Filed After 7 Years – Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| No complaint whatsoever filed within 4 years | ❌ | Barred. The court must dismiss motu proprio or on motion. |
| Complaint with Prosecutor filed on year 3; Information filed in court on year 7 ½ | ✅ (interrupted on year 3) | Action continues; prescription validly tolled. |
| Complaint filed on year 3; Complaint dismissed on year 3 ½; Re-filed on year 7 ¼ | Only ½ year remained, but more than ½ year had lapsed. | Barred. Re-filing came after balance of prescriptive period had run out. |
| Accused abroad for 4 years (year 2–6); complaint filed on year 7 ½ | Clock ran only 2 years (year 0–2) + resumes year 6–7 ½ = 3 ½ years. Still within 4 years. |
Action prospers (absence suspended clock). |
| Accused convicted; escapes; warrant unserved for 7 years | Separate concept: prescription of penalty. Under Art. 93 RPC (applied by analogy), a penalty of ≤1 year prescribes in 5 years. The right of the State to enforce the sentence is barred after 5 years of evasion. |
5. Key Supreme Court Pronouncements
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Holding on Prescription |
|---|---|---|
| Lozano v. CA | 107651 • 16 Jun 1994 | R.A. 3326 governs; 4-year period; notice-of-dishonor + 5 days rule. |
| Cruz v. People | 187266 • 26 Apr 2017 | Filing with the prosecutor interrupts prescription, adopting Olarte for BP 22. |
| Nilo de Silva v. People | 190660 • 25 Jan 2017 | Re-filing after prior dismissal: only unused balance of 4 years is left. |
| Ang Tibay Check Cases (People v. Malic) | 2017 decisions | Affirm concurrent fine-only penalty but retain same prescriptive rules. |
| People v. Galano | 144511-12 • 26 Apr 2002 | Five-day grace period is an element; clock starts after its expiry. |
| People v. Olarte | L-13027 • 23 Mar 1967 | Pre-BP 22 case on estafa; principle of interruption by filing a complaint, now applied to special-law offenses including BP 22. |
| People v. Dizon | 110353 • 11 Jul 1996 | Clarified distinction between prescription of offense (R.A. 3326) and penalty (Art. 92 RPC). |
6. Distinguishing Prescription of the Offense vs. Prescription of the Penalty
| Aspect | Prescription of Offense | Prescription of Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Governing law for BP 22 | R.A. 3326 | Art. 92-93 RPC (applied suppletorily) |
| Clock starts | Upon commission/discovery + 5-day failure | From finality of judgment if penalty remains unserved |
| Duration | 4 years | 5 years (penalties of ≤1 year) |
| Tolling / interruption | Filing of complaint, absence abroad, etc. | Suspension while convict is under legal detention or on probation/parole. |
7. Civil Liability and Prescription
Civil liability on the face value of the check is independent of criminal prescription. Even if the BP 22 charge is time-barred after 7 years, an action for collection may still be filed within 10 years (written contract) under Art. 1144 of the Civil Code, counted from notice of dishonor. However, if the claim is based on issuance of worthless check only, the longer “all-risks” tort prescription of 4 years under Art. 1146 may arguably apply once the contract theory is abandoned.
8. Practical Litigation Tips
For Prosecutors / Private Complainants
- File early. A simple affidavit-complaint within 4 years freezes the clock.
- Mind the notice. Attach proof of written notice of dishonor; the date received by the drawer anchors the timeline.
- Avoid dismissals without arraignment. If you must withdraw, immediately re-file before the remaining time runs out.
For Defense Counsel
Audit the timeline—compute:
- date of receipt of notice + 5 banking days,
- days before any valid complaint was filed,
- gaps caused by dismissals. If total > 4 years, move to dismiss for prescription (non-waivable, jurisdictional).
Challenge defective notices; an invalid notice resets the reckoning of 5-day period—sometimes shaving years off the complainan’s margin.
Invoke prescription of penalty for clients who have been fugitives for > 5 years on a fine-only or ≤1-year imprisonment judgment.
9. Frequently Asked Questions
| Question | Short Answer |
|---|---|
| Does the barangay conciliation process interrupt prescription? | No. Only filing with the prosecutor’s office or a court counts as “institution of proceedings” under R.A. 3326. |
| If the complainant merely sends demand letters within 4 years, is that enough? | No. Private notices do not toll prescription. |
| What if the drawer never actually receives the notice of dishonor? | No offense consummated → prescription does not even start. The burden is on prosecution to show actual receipt (or refusal). |
| Does the Supreme Court’s policy to prefer fine-only penalties (A.M. 12-11-2012) affect prescription? | No. The statutory penalty range remains “up to 1 year,” keeping BP 22 in the 4-year bracket. |
10. Conclusion
The seeming riddle of “BP 22 after seven years” unravels once we recall two numbers: 4 – year prescription of the offense under R.A. 3326, and 5 – year prescription of the penalty under the Revised Penal Code. Seven years is therefore either three years too late (if no case was ever begun) or simply irrelevant (if proceedings were timely instituted and have tolled the period).
Timely procedural action—not mere vigilance—decides whether a bouncing check lives on as a criminal case or forever bounces out of court.
DISCLAIMER: This article is for academic discussion and is not a substitute for specific legal advice. Always consult counsel for concrete cases.