Overview: what “prescription” means in B.P. 22

In criminal law, prescription of the offense is the time limit within which the State must commence criminal proceedings. If the case is filed after the prescriptive period has run (and there was no valid interruption), the accused may move to dismiss on the ground that the offense has prescribed.

For B.P. Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law), prescription is a frequent battleground because checks can bounce long after they were issued, parties often attempt settlement, and complaints may be filed late.

This article focuses on criminal prescription of B.P. 22, while also explaining practical timelines, interruptions, and common pitfalls.

The governing law on prescription for B.P. 22

B.P. 22 is a special law (not part of the Revised Penal Code). The prescription of offenses under special laws is generally governed by Act No. 3326, as amended.

The key takeaway

B.P. 22 cases generally prescribe in four (4) years.

Why: The penalty under B.P. 22 includes imprisonment up to one (1) year (or fine, or both, depending on the court), which places it in the 4-year prescriptive bracket under Act No. 3326’s scheme for special laws.

From what date do you count the 4 years?

This is where most disputes arise.

A. The “commission of the offense” anchor: usually the date of dishonor

A B.P. 22 offense is tied to a check that is dishonored by the drawee bank for:

insufficiency of funds, or
other covered reasons (including certain stop-payment situations that effectively reflect lack of funds / credit, depending on circumstances).

A common starting point is the date the check was dishonored (the bank’s return date / date stamped “DAIF,” “DAUD,” etc.). This is often treated as the “commission” date for counting prescription because, without dishonor, there is no actionable “bouncing check” event.

B. The “discovery + institution of proceedings” concept under Act No. 3326

Act No. 3326 contains language that, in simplified terms, is often discussed as:

prescription runs from the day of violation, and
if not known at the time, from discovery, in relation to the institution of proceedings for investigation/punishment.

In B.P. 22 practice, parties sometimes argue the “clock” should relate to when the payee learned of the dishonor, or when legally significant notice was received (see next section). Courts assess these issues based on the facts and applicable doctrine.

C. Does “notice of dishonor” affect when prescription starts?

B.P. 22 litigation heavily emphasizes notice of dishonor because it supports proof of knowledge and triggers the maker/drawer’s opportunity to pay.

Key practical points:

The law provides a mechanism where failure to pay within five (5) banking days from notice can create prima facie inference of knowledge of insufficient funds.
In many cases, courts require proof of proper notice as part of establishing culpability (at least to support the knowledge element/inference).

For prescription: Parties sometimes argue that because notice is crucial to proving liability, the operative date should be tied to notice (or lapse of the 5-day period). Others treat dishonor as the core “commission” date.

Practical, risk-avoiding approach: If you’re the complaining party, count from the date of dishonor and file well before 4 years. If you’re the defense, examine whether the complaint was filed beyond 4 years from dishonor and whether any claimed interruption is valid.

What acts interrupt prescription in B.P. 22?

Even if four years have nearly run, prescription may be interrupted by certain proceedings.

1) Filing a complaint that institutes proceedings

Under Act No. 3326, prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the alleged offender.

In B.P. 22 practice, this typically means:

filing the complaint-affidavit (and supporting documents) with the Office of the Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, or
filing the case in the appropriate court if the procedural posture requires direct filing.

Important: There has been historical litigation about what counts as “institution of proceedings” (e.g., whether filing with the prosecutor interrupts prescription or only filing in court does). In modern B.P. 22 practice, filing with the prosecutor for preliminary investigation is commonly treated as instituting proceedings for purposes of interruption, but the defense will still scrutinize facts and timing closely.

2) If proceedings are dismissed (not on double jeopardy), the clock can run again

Act No. 3326 contemplates that if proceedings are dismissed for reasons that don’t put the accused in jeopardy, prescription may resume running. Practically, this means:

A dismissal at the prosecutor level or for procedural reasons may not permanently “stop” prescription forever; the timeline can become complicated depending on what was filed, when, and how it ended.

3) Demand letters and settlement talks: usually not “institution of proceedings”

Common misconception: sending a demand letter or exchanging settlement proposals stops prescription. Generally, these are private acts, not the institution of criminal proceedings. They may help prove notice and support collection, but do not reliably interrupt criminal prescription.

4) Barangay conciliation: helpful, but don’t assume it stops the clock

Some disputes go through barangay conciliation (where applicable). While it may be required in certain interpersonal disputes, do not assume it interrupts criminal prescription the way a prosecutor/court filing does. If prescription is a concern, parties often file the proper complaint within the prescriptive period while complying with procedural prerequisites as applicable.

How to compute: a practical timeline example

Scenario

Check dated: 01 March 2022
Presented and dishonored: 05 March 2022
Notice of dishonor received by drawer: 10 March 2022
No payment within 5 banking days
Complaint filed with prosecutor: 01 March 2026

Prescription analysis (typical defense angle)

4 years from dishonor (05 March 2022) ends: 05 March 2026
Complaint filed: 01 March 2026 → within 4 years (timely), assuming proper filing constitutes institution of proceedings.

If instead the complaint was filed 06 March 2026, defense will argue it’s beyond 4 years (unless prosecution proves a different valid reckoning date and/or valid interruption).

Relationship to civil collection: criminal prescription ≠ civil prescription

Even if the criminal B.P. 22 case is time-barred, the civil aspect may still be pursued (depending on the facts, cause of action, and applicable prescriptive periods under civil law).

Separate tracks

Criminal liability (B.P. 22): generally 4 years to commence.
Civil liability (collection of sum of money, contract/loan, etc.): governed by civil prescriptive periods that may be longer (often depending on whether the obligation is written, implied, etc.).

Practical note: Many complainants pursue B.P. 22 to pressure payment, but the civil case may remain viable even if the criminal case prescribes—so parties should evaluate both.

Interaction with Estafa (Article 315, Revised Penal Code) and why it matters

Bounced checks may also be alleged as estafa (typically under Article 315(2)(d)), but that is a different crime with different elements (notably deceit and damage) and different prescription rules (generally under the Revised Penal Code, which depends on the penalty and has its own framework).

Why this matters:

A B.P. 22 case could prescribe in 4 years, while an estafa theory may have a different prescriptive period depending on the imposable penalty.
Not every bouncing check is estafa; B.P. 22 was designed precisely to penalize issuance of worthless checks even where proving deceit like estafa is harder.

Common defenses and prosecution pitfalls tied to prescription

For the defense

Compute from dishonor date and test if the complaint was filed beyond 4 years.
Attack claimed “interruptions”: Was there a real institution of proceedings? Was it timely? Was it properly filed?
Examine whether the complainant delayed and relied only on demand letters.

For the complainant/prosecution

File early. Do not wait out years while negotiating.
Preserve documents: the check, return slip/memo, proof of presentation and dishonor, proof of notice, registry return cards or personal service evidence, and records of dates.
Ensure the complaint is filed in the proper forum and in the proper manner so it clearly counts as instituting proceedings.

Frequently asked questions

1) “Is it always exactly 4 years?”

As a rule of thumb for B.P. 22, yes—four years is the standard prescriptive period used in practice because of the penalty structure under the special-law prescription statute. The real litigation usually concerns when the 4 years started and whether it was interrupted.

2) “Does the date on the check matter?”

The date on the check can matter for many issues, but for prescription the crucial date is typically dishonor, not issuance—because B.P. 22 is triggered by a check that bounces upon presentment.

3) “If the drawer promised to pay, does that extend the criminal deadline?”

A promise to pay may help in settlement or civil collection, but it usually does not extend the criminal prescriptive period by itself.

4) “If I file on the last day, am I safe?”

It depends whether your filing is treated as proper institution of proceedings and whether it is complete and properly received by the office that can act on it. Filing early avoids technical risk.

Practical guidance (non-advice)

If you are a payee/holder: treat B.P. 22 as a 4-year countdown from dishonor and file well before the deadline; do not rely on negotiations to “pause” time.
If you are an accused/drawer: get the check’s dishonor records and complaint filing dates; prescription is a threshold issue that can end the criminal case if clearly time-barred.
For both sides: keep a clean, dated paper trail—dates win prescription disputes.

Conclusion

In the Philippines, B.P. Blg. 22 cases generally prescribe in four (4) years, under the statute governing prescription for offenses under special laws. The decisive issues are commonly:

the correct starting point (often anchored on the check’s dishonor), and
whether prescription was interrupted by properly instituted proceedings (typically by filing the appropriate complaint initiating official investigation/prosecution).

Because a prescription defense can be case-ending—and because a late filing can permanently lose the criminal remedy—B.P. 22 disputes are best managed with disciplined date tracking and timely filing.

This article is for general informational purposes and not legal advice.