For

: Atty. Jejomar Duterte

From

: Manuel Poe

Date

: December 14, 2013

Re

: Filing for an action for the violation of BP 22 on December

14, 2003 when the notice of dishonor was received on
December 14, 2009

A letter was received by this office asking whether or not a

case for violation of B.P. 22 may prosper under the following facts:
A issued a check to B and B presented the check which was
dishonored; therefore, B sent a demand letter to A informing A of
the dishonor of the check and demanding payment for the check.
Meanwhile, A received the notice of dishonor on December 14,
2009. B filed a case for violation of BP 22 against A on December
14, 2013.
The issue in this present case is whether or not A can file an
action for violation of BP 22 against B on December 14, 2013.
Yes, B can file an action for the violation of BP 22 against A
based on several grounds:
1. Under the provisions of BP 22, the elements of the crime
constituting the issuance of a bouncing check are that a
person issues a check, which is refused by the drawee bank
because of insufficiency of funds; and the person who issued

the check knows the insufficiency. The facts clearly show that
A issued a check, which had insufficient funds.
2. Act. No 3326 provides for the prescriptive period for this case:
Sec. 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless
otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with
the following rules: xxx (b) after four years for those punished
by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two
years
Sec. 2. Prescription shall being to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment.
Clearly established by the foregoing provisions, As action is a
violation of BP. 22 and that such action if commenced, is still within
the prescriptive period.
The undersigned recommends that a complaint be filed within the
day in behalf of B against A for the violation of BP 22 based on the
grounds abovementioned.
(Sgd.)
Manuel Poe