Notice of Dishonor under the Philippine Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22)
1. Introduction
The Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishes any person who makes or draws a check knowing at the time of issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank. A written Notice of Dishonor (NoD) is the statutory fulcrum on which criminal liability swings: without it, the prosecution fails, while with it a prima facie presumption of the drawer’s knowledge of insufficiency arises.
2. Statutory Framework
| Provision | Key Text |
|---|---|
| BP 22, §1 | Defines the act of making or issuing a worthless check as a criminal offense. |
| BP 22, §2 | Creates the prima facie presumption of knowledge only if the drawer “fails to pay within five (5) banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.” |
Sanction: Imprisonment of up to 1 year or a fine of up to double the amount of the check (but not more than ₱200,000), or both, at the court’s discretion.
3. Elements of the Offense
- Making/drawing and issuance of a check.
- Knowledge (or presumed knowledge) of insufficiency of funds or credit.
- Dishonor by the bank for insufficiency or account closure.
- Failure to pay the amount of the check within 5 banking days after receiving written NoD.
Element 2 (knowledge) rests squarely on the NoD.
4. Nature, Purpose, and Rationale of the Notice
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature | A formal, written communication to the drawer that the check bounced and payment is demanded. |
| Purpose | (a) Alerts the drawer of bank refusal; (b) Grants a statutory grace period of 5 banking days to avert prosecution; (c) Triggers the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency. |
| Rationale | BP 22 is malum prohibitum: intent to defraud need not be shown, but Congress tempered harshness by giving the drawer a last chance to make good. |
5. Requisites of a Valid Notice
| Requirement | Details & Leading Cases |
|---|---|
| Written form | Oral notice or mere phone calls are insufficient. People v. Dizon, G.R. 123744 (1999). |
| Specificity | Must state: • Date and details of the check (number, amount, drawee bank) • Reason for dishonor • Unequivocal demand to pay within 5 banking days. |
| Proper Service | (a) Personal delivery or (b) Registered mail to the drawer’s last known address or the address printed on the check. Domagsang v. People, G.R. 191134 (2012). |
| Proof of Receipt | Registry return card, personally signed acknowledgment, or competent testimony. Mere affidavit of the complainant is inadequate. Ceballos v. People, G.R. 203286 (2014). |
| Timing | Five banking days are counted from actual or constructive receipt of the written NoD—not from mailing date. |
⚠️ Defect or absence of written NoD is fatal. Convictions have been reversed when notice was undated, addressed incorrectly, or unsupported by registry evidence.
6. Service Issues Explained
| Scenario | Effect |
|---|---|
| “Unclaimed” registered mail | May constitute constructive receipt if evidence shows the notice was correctly addressed, stamped, and a postal advice was left (Vaca v. CA, G.R. 131714, 1999). |
| Returned “Moved Out” / “Unknown” | No constructive receipt; prosecution fails unless personal service is later effected. |
| Corporate Drawers | Service on the president, managing partner, or authorized corporate officer suffices. |
7. Evidentiary Burden and Presumption of Knowledge
Prosecution’s burden: Prove all elements, including valid service of the NoD.
Presumption arises only after proof that:
- The drawer received written NoD, and
- Still failed to pay within 5 banking days.
Accused may rebut by showing e.g. non‑receipt, payment within the grace period, or bank error.
8. Interaction with Other Laws
| Law | Relation to NoD |
|---|---|
| Art. 315 §2(d) (Estafa by post‑dated check) | Also requires a demand, but may be oral and need not be within 5 days. Estafa protects property rights; BP 22 protects banking/commerce. One act can give rise to both crimes. |
| Evidence Rules | Business‐records rule admits bank “Debit Memo” or “Certificate of Dishonor.” NoD must still be proved independently. |
| Civil Code | Payment within the 5‑day window avoids criminal liability but does not erase civil obligations (Art. 1158). |
9. Prescription and Limitations
| Topic | Rule |
|---|---|
| Prescriptive period | 4 years (Act 3326) counted from receipt of NoD not from check date. |
| Interruption | Filing of complaint with the prosecutor or barangay raises interruption; running resumes if the case is provisionally dismissed without reinstatement. |
| Effect of Payment After 5 Days | People v. Dominguez, G.R. 125105 (1999) — Payment or restitution after the 5‑day period does not extinguish criminal liability but may mitigate penalty or result in civil compromise. |
10. Common Defenses & Pitfalls
| Defense | How Courts Treat It |
|---|---|
| No written notice / improper service | Almost always acquittal. |
| Check issued as security | Generally not a defense; BP 22 applies even to security checks (Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. L‑63419, 1986). |
| Payment within 5 days | Absolute defense; accused must prove actual receipt by payee or bank certification. |
| Bank error / spurious dishonor | Rebuttal evidence can negate knowledge element. |
| Lack of jurisdiction | Place where check was drawn or deposited/ dishonored; venue may be contested. |
11. Practical Guidance for Practitioners
Drafting the Notice
- Put the word “NOTICE OF DISHONOR” in bold.
- Recite complete check particulars and bank refusal annotation.
- Demand payment within 5 banking days from receipt.
- State that failure will cause prosecution under BP 22.
Service Tips
- Send by registered mail with return card and attempt personal delivery; keep registry receipts and tracking print‑out.
- For corporations, serve on the president or treasurer.
Documentation
- Preserve: (a) original check, (b) bank’s “Debit Memo” or “Returned Check Advice,” (c) written NoD, (d) proof of mailing and receipt.
Counting the 5‑Day Period
- Exclude the date of receipt; count only banking days (exclude weekends and declared bank holidays).
- File the complaint only after the 5‑day window lapses.
12. Comparative Snapshot: BP 22 vs. Estafa § 315 2(d)
| Feature | BP 22 | Estafa |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Malum prohibitum (intent immaterial) | Malum in se (intent to defraud essential) |
| Notice type | Written NoD | Demand (may be oral) |
| Grace period | 5 banking days | Reasonable time (no fixed period) |
| Penalty | Prison Mayor max 1 yr or fine | Based on amount swindled; may exceed 20 yrs |
| Civil liability | Separate; survives acquittal | Integral part of the crime |
13. Recent Jurisprudence Highlights
| Case | G.R. No. | Holding on NoD |
|---|---|---|
| Ceballos v. People | 203286 (7 Apr 2014) | Acquittal where NoD sent by ordinary mail; registry receipt absent. |
| Domagsang v. People | 191134 (14 Feb 2012) | Unclaimed registered NoD deemed constructively served; conviction affirmed. |
| Cruz v. People | 199569 (23 July 2014) | Failure to prove actual receipt of NoD; presumption of knowledge did not arise. |
| Marqueza v. People | 189940 (5 Apr 2017) | Corporate treasurer validly served; personal receipt unnecessary where evidence shows corporate notice. |
14. Conclusion
The Notice of Dishonor is the linchpin of BP 22 prosecution. It is strictly construed—a single misstep in form, content, or service dismantles the State’s case. Conversely, when properly crafted and served, it activates the presumption that the drawer knew the dire state of his bank account, paving the way for liability. Mastery of these technical requisites—rooted in the statute, refined by decades of jurisprudence—is therefore indispensable to prosecutors, defense counsel, businesspeople, and compliance officers alike.