Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bouncing Checks Law
Bouncing Checks Law
The Bouncing Checks Law, or Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, is a law that governs the criminal liability
arising from the issuance of bounced checks. What the law punishes is the issuance of a
bouncingcheck and not the purpose for which the check was issued, nor the terms and conditions of its
issuance. To determine the reasons for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their
issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as
currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. [1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Constitutional challenge
3 Jurisdiction
4 Other Issues
o 4.2 The issuer is not automatically liable simply because the check “bounced”
o 4.4 Filing fees are generally not required for criminal cases
5 See Also
6 References
Constitutional challenge
The attacks on the constitutionality of BP 22, as discussed in Lozano vs. Martinez,[2] are the following: (1)
it offends the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt; (2) it impairs freedom of contract;
(3) it contravenes the equal protection clause; (4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive powers;
and (5) its enactment is flawed in that during its passage the Interim Batasan violated the constitutional
provision prohibiting amendments to a bill on Third Reading. Unless otherwise indicated, the succeeding
discussions are lifted from Lozano.
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a
check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation
which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The
thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting
them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by
the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
It may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to penalize a person for non-payment of a
debt ex contractu But certainly it is within the prerogative of the lawmaking body to proscribe certain acts
deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in se are not the only acts which the law can
punish. An act may not be considered by society as inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se but
because of the harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed and criminally punished
as malum prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power.
The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making
and issuance of a worthless check is deemed public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal
sanctions. It had been reported that the approximate value of bouncing checks per day was close to 200
million pesos.
It is not for the court to question the wisdom or policy of the statute. It is sufficient that a reasonable nexus
exists between means and end. Considering the factual and legal antecedents that led to the adoption of
the statute, it is not difficult to understand the public concern which prompted its enactment.
(1) Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
time of issue that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank.
(2) Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank shall fail to keep sufficient funds
or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of 90
days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
In the first paragraph, the drawer knows that he does not have sufficient funds to cover
the check at the time of its issuance, while in the second paragraph, the drawer has sufficient
funds at the time of issuance but fails to keep sufficient funds or maintain credit within ninety
(90) days from the date appearing on the check. In both instances, the offense is
consummated by the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or credit.
The check involved in the first offense is worthless at the time of issuance since
the drawer had neither sufficient funds in nor credit with the drawee bank at the time, while that
involved in the second offense is good when issued as drawer had sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when issued. Under the first offense, the 90-day presentment period is
not expressly provided, while such period is an express element of the second offense.
Elements: General
The elements of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 are:
(1) drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value;
(2) knowledge by the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he did not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon presentment; and
(3) said check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.[4]
Element 1: Issuance of check
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a
worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The
mere act of issuing a worthless check – whether as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as
evidence of pre-existing debt – is malum prohibitum.[5]
It must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the insufficiency of
funds at the time the check was issued. BP 22 provides that the accused must be notified
of the dishonor, thus:
The prosecution must establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was
dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five banking days from receipt of the notice,
to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its
payment. The notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing. A mere oral
notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check is not enough. It's true that
Section 2 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing. This, however, should
be taken in conjunction with Section 3, which provides “that where there are no sufficient
funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the
notice of dishonor or refusal.”This is consistent with the rule that penal statutes have to
be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Without a
written notice of dishonor of the checks, there is no way of determining when the 5-day
period prescribed in Section 2 would start and end.[6]
In other words, the prima facie presumption arises when a check is issued. But the law
also provides that the presumption does not arise when the issuer pays the amount of the
check or makes arrangement for its payment "within five banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee." Verily, BP 22 gives the
accused an opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the check and thus avert
prosecution.[7] The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an
opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Procedural due process clearly enjoins
that a notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by the accused. The accused
has a right to demand – and the basic postulates of fairness require – that the notice of
dishonor be actually sent to and received by the same to afford him/her the opportunity to
avert prosecution under B.P. 22.[8]
The foregoing discussion abundantly shows that the notice must be in writing. A verbal
and indirect notice, however, was found to be sufficient in the case of Yulo vs.
People.[9] The pertinent finding of fact in this case is as follows:
As Myrna [the complainant] did not know petitioner’s [the accused] address, she
immediately informed Josefina [the "best friend of the accused] about the
dishonored checks. The latter told Myrna not to worry and repeated her
assurance that petitioner is her best friend and a good payer. Myrna tried to get
petitioner’s address from Josefina, but the latter refused and instead made the
assurance that she will inform petitioner that the checks were dishonored.
It is clear from these findings that there was no written notice given to the accused. It is
also clear that no notice, even a verbal notice, was given directly to the accused. Still,
the Supreme Courtconcluded that:
We likewise find no reason to sustain petitioner’s contention that she was not
given any notice of dishonor. Myrna had no reason to be suspicious of petitioner.
It will be recalled that Josefina Dimalanta assured Myrna that petitioner is her
"best friend" and "a good payer." Consequently, when the checks bounced,
Myrna would naturally turn to Josefina for help. We note that Josefina refused to
give Myrna petitioner’s address but promised to inform petitioner about the
dishonored checks.
This ruling would appear to be inconsistent with the required burden of proof and the rule
of interpretation of penal laws, succinctly noted in King vs. People, thus:
We must stress that BP 22, like all penal statutes, is construed strictly against the
State and liberally in favor of the accused. Likewise, the prosecution has the
burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt each element of the crime. Hence, the
prosecution’s case must rise or fall on the strength of its own evidence, never on
the weakness or even absence of that of the defense.
Element 3: Dishonor of check
Under Section 3 of BP 22, "the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored
check, having the drawee’s refusal to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached
thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie evidence of the
making or issuance of said check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment
and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored for the reason
written, stamped, or attached by the drawee on such dishonored check." For instance, in
the case of King vs. People,[10], the prosecution presented the checks which were
stamped with the words “ACCOUNT CLOSED,” supported by the returned check tickets
issued by the depository bank stating that the checks had been dishonored. The
documents constitute prima facie evidence that the drawee bank dishonored the checks,
and no no evidence was presented to rebut the claim.
Jurisdiction
What court filed
Violations of BP 22 are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts or
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC). This means that the Information or case can only be
filed with the MTC, regardless of the amount involved.
Where filed
(For editing)
Other Issues
Separate from estafa
(For editing)
Check as guarantee
As noted above, law punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which the check was issued, nor the terms and conditions of its issuance.
The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum, and the argument that
the check is merely to guarantee payment of an obligation is not a defense. [11]
Applicable penalties
Courts have the discretion of imposing: (a) imprisonment only; (b) fine only; OR (c) both.
It is entirely possible that only a fine, without imprisonment, is imposed.