I. Why the “prescription period” matters in BP 22

“Prescription of offenses” is the legal time limit for the State (through the prosecutor) to file and pursue a criminal case. If the prescriptive period lapses before the filing that legally interrupts prescription, the case may be dismissed—even if the check bounced and the elements appear present.

In BP 22 practice, prescription questions commonly arise when:

the payee delays sending/serving notice of dishonor,
negotiations drag on for months or years,
multiple checks are involved,
a complaint was filed with the prosecutor but the information in court came later, or
the respondent argues the case was filed “too late.”

II. The governing law on prescription for BP 22

A. BP 22 does not set its own prescriptive period

BP 22 defines the offense and penalties, but it does not provide a specific rule on how long the State has to file the case.

B. The prescriptive period is supplied by Act No. 3326

Because BP 22 is a special law, the prescriptive periods under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) do not automatically apply. Instead, the statute that generally governs prescription for violations of special laws is Act No. 3326 (“An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances…”).

III. The prescriptive period for BP 22: Four (4) years

A. Penalty under BP 22

BP 22 is punishable by:

imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year, or
fine (commonly up to double the amount of the check, subject to limits applied in practice), or
both, in the court’s discretion.

B. Matching the BP 22 penalty to Act No. 3326

Under Act No. 3326, violations of special laws prescribe based on the maximum imposable imprisonment. Since BP 22’s maximum imprisonment is one (1) year, the applicable prescriptive period falls within the bracket that prescribes in four (4) years.

Bottom line: A BP 22 criminal action must be filed within 4 years, counted from the proper “start date” (discussed below), unless prescription was legally interrupted.

IV. When does the 4-year period start running in BP 22?

This is the heart of most prescription disputes.

A. General rule in special laws: from “commission” or from “discovery,” depending on the situation

Act No. 3326 states that prescription generally runs from the day of the commission of the violation, and if the violation is not known at the time, then from the discovery of the violation and the institution of proceedings.

In BP 22, “commission” is not simply the date written on the check or the date it was handed to the payee. The offense matures only when the statutory conditions happen.

B. BP 22 is not complete upon issuance alone

BP 22 penalizes the making/drawing/issuance of a check that is later dishonored, with knowledge of insufficiency of funds/credit, plus compliance with the notice requirement that triggers the opportunity to pay.

Practically, the offense is treated as completed when:

the check is dishonored upon presentment (e.g., “DAIF,” “Account Closed,” etc.), and
the issuer/drawer receives notice of dishonor, and
the issuer/drawer fails to pay the amount of the check (or make arrangements for full payment) within five (5) banking days from receipt of notice.

That 5-banking-day window is critical because the law gives the issuer a chance to avoid criminal liability by paying promptly after notice.

C. The most defensible “start date” for prescription in BP 22

Because the offense is considered complete only after the drawer fails to pay within 5 banking days from notice of dishonor, many computations treat the prescriptive clock as starting on:

the day after the 5-banking-day period expires (counted from receipt of notice of dishonor).

This approach aligns the start of prescription with the completion of the offense (i.e., when criminal liability is triggered and no longer avoidable by timely payment).

D. What counts as “notice of dishonor” for this purpose

In BP 22, “notice of dishonor” is not a mere formality. It is central both to:

establishing the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency, and
triggering the 5-banking-day grace period.

Key practical points:

The prosecution must generally prove the drawer received notice of dishonor (commonly through personal receipt, registry return card, courier proof of delivery, or other competent evidence).
If notice is not adequately proven, the BP 22 case may fail on the merits—and disputes about when prescription started can also become more complicated.

V. Interruption of prescription: what stops the clock

Even if many months—or years—have passed, the case may still be timely if prescription was interrupted.

A. Filing a complaint with the prosecutor interrupts prescription

A major and practical rule in Philippine criminal procedure is that the filing of the complaint for preliminary investigation with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor is treated as the institution of proceedings that interrupts prescription for many offenses under special laws, including BP 22.

This matters because BP 22 cases often begin with a prosecutor complaint long before an information is filed in court.

B. What does not reliably interrupt prescription

These actions are commonly argued but are not the safest to rely on as interruptive acts:

mere demand letters (without filing a complaint),
private settlement talks,
barangay conciliation efforts (context-dependent and often litigated),
promises to pay or partial payments, by themselves,
repeated re-deposits of the same check (unless tied to formal proceedings and evidence relevant to elements).

The safest interruptive act to point to is: a formally filed complaint-affidavit with the prosecutor (or filing of an information in court).

C. After interruption, does the clock restart?

In practice, once proceedings are instituted, prescription is interrupted while the case is being processed. Disputes can arise if the complaint is dismissed and refiled, or if there is a long gap. The exact handling can depend on procedural posture and specific facts, but the key takeaway is: timely filing with the prosecutor is usually the decisive act that saves the case from prescription.

VI. Step-by-step: how to compute BP 22 prescription in real life

Scenario 1: Straightforward timeline

Check issued: March 1, 2021
Check presented & dishonored: March 10, 2021
Drawer receives notice of dishonor: March 15, 2021
5 banking days lapse: count 5 banking days from March 15
Offense completes upon failure to pay within that period
Prescription starts: the day after the 5th banking day
Prescriptive period: 4 years
Deadline to file complaint (absent interruption): around March 2025 (exact day depends on banking-day count)

If the payee filed a complaint-affidavit with the prosecutor on February 2025, prescription is interrupted and the filing is timely.

Scenario 2: Late notice of dishonor (common in practice)

Dishonor happened in 2021, but notice was served much later. This raises two issues:

Merits risk: If notice was unreasonably delayed or cannot be proven, the BP 22 case can fail.
Prescription start: If the violation was “not known” in the legal sense until discovery, arguments may be made about when discovery occurred. In BP 22, however, the typical anchor is still receipt of notice and lapse of the 5 banking days, because that completes the offense.

Scenario 3: Multiple checks (installments)

Each bouncing check is generally treated as a separate offense, with its own:

dishonor date,
notice receipt date,
5-banking-day period,
prescription start date,
and 4-year prescriptive deadline.

This is why prosecutors and courts often examine prescription check-by-check, not “as a group.”

VII. Special issues that frequently affect prescription arguments

A. Postdated checks

A postdated check can still trigger BP 22. The relevant dates for prescription are tied to:

presentment,
dishonor,
notice receipt,
lapse of 5 banking days.

The date written on the check is not automatically the prescription start date.

B. “Account Closed” or stop payment

These can strengthen the inference of knowledge, but prescription still hinges on:

when dishonor occurred,
when notice was received,
and when proceedings were instituted.

C. Corporate checks and signatories

BP 22 liability typically attaches to the person who signed the check (or otherwise falls within the law’s reach). Each signatory’s receipt of notice and opportunity to pay can become relevant, including for timing questions.

D. Re-presentment of checks

Repeated deposits do not necessarily “reset” prescription. What matters is:

the dishonor tied to the offense,
proper notice,
failure to pay within 5 banking days,
and timely institution of proceedings.

VIII. Relationship to civil actions and estafa

A. BP 22 vs. civil collection

Even if BP 22 prescribes or is dismissed, the payee may still pursue civil remedies (collection of sum of money), subject to civil prescriptive periods (which are different and depend on the nature of the obligation).

B. BP 22 vs. estafa (Article 315, RPC)

BP 22 is malum prohibitum (regulatory), while estafa is malum in se and requires deceit/damage elements. The prescriptive periods differ because they are governed by different laws and penalty structures. A check transaction can sometimes trigger both, but they are not identical and do not share the same prescription rules.

IX. Practical guidance for handling prescription in BP 22

For complainants/payees

Preserve bank return slips/memos showing dishonor.
Serve provable written notice of dishonor promptly (personal service with acknowledgment, registered mail with return card, reputable courier with delivery proof, etc.).
If payment is not made within 5 banking days, file the complaint-affidavit with the prosecutor as early as possible—do not wait for negotiations to drag past years.
For multiple checks, organize evidence per check and track deadlines separately.

For respondents/drawers

Examine whether notice of dishonor was properly served and proven.
Check whether the complaint was filed within 4 years from the legally correct start date (often tied to the 5-banking-day lapse).
Verify whether there was a valid interruptive filing with the prosecutor.
Consider defenses grounded on lack of notice, payment within the grace period, or other factual/legal defects.

X. Key takeaways (quick reference)

Prescriptive period for BP 22: 4 years (via Act No. 3326).
Most practical start point: after the offense is complete—commonly after the lapse of 5 banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor without payment.
Best interruptive act: filing the complaint-affidavit with the prosecutor (institution of proceedings), not mere demand letters or negotiations.
Multiple checks: usually separate offenses, separate prescription computations.

XI. Suggested outline for a “Prescription” section in pleadings

When arguing prescription (either side), courts appreciate a clean timeline. Use:

Date check issued
Date presented
Date dishonored (attach bank proof)
Date notice of dishonor sent and received (attach proof of receipt)
Date 5 banking days expired
Date complaint filed with prosecutor (stamped filing date)
Date information filed in court (if applicable)
Computation showing timeliness or lapse

If you want, paste a sample timeline (with dates of dishonor, notice receipt, and prosecutor filing), and I’ll compute the prescriptive deadline check-by-check in a clear format you can reuse in a motion or memorandum.