HANDOUT 8: ANTI-BOUNCING CHECKS
J-Culajara
LAW (B.P. 22) AND SWINDLING/ESTAFA
ATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA UNIVERSITY
School of Management and Accountancy
Accountancy Department
WAYS OF VIOLATING B.P. BLG. 22
1. By making or drawing and issuing any check to
apply on account or for value, knowing at the time
of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
such check in full upon its presentment, which
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.
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check, by failing to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain credit to cover the full amount of the
check is presented within a period of 90 days from
the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
OTHER MATTERS
• The gravamen of B.P. 22 is the issuance of a check,
and not the non-payment of an obligation. Deceit is
not required under B.P. 22.
• It is no defense then that the drawer of the check
ordered the bank to stop payment, if he had no
sufficient funds or credit and the check would have
been dishonored had he not made the order. The
law regards the order of stopping payment as a
mere pretext of the drawer to avoid criminal
liability. Note: The order to the bank to stop
payment of the check must be without any valid
reason.
Integrative Course for Regulatory Framework for Business Transactions (RFBT)
• A written notice of dishonor is necessary to secure
conviction for violation of B.P. 22. An oral notice
of dishonor is insufficent. (Domagsang v. Court of
Appeals)
ILLUSTRATION
There was a mistake in naming the payee of the
check; the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment; and it
appeared that the drawer knew at the time the check was
issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. In this
case, the drawer is not liable, even if the check would have
been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had he not
ordered the bank to stop payment, because there was a valid
reason (wrong payee) for ordering the bank to stop
payment.
Suppose that the drawer had kept sufficient funds
in the drawee bank for 100 days from the date appearing
thereon to cover the check he had issued. The next day he
withdrew all the funds. When the check was presented later
on that day to the drawee bank, it was dishonored. Is the
drawer liable?
Suggested answer: No. The check was not presented within
a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon.
EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS
The making, drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee because of
insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when
presented within 90 days from the date of the check, shall
be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency
of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payments in full by the drawee of such
1
Instructor: K.
check within 5 banking days after receiving notice that such
check has not been paid by the drawee.
The element of knowledge and insufficiency of
funds or credit is not present and, therefore, the crime does
not exist, when the drawer either –
• Pays the holder of the check the amount due
thereon within 5 banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee; or
• Makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within 5 banking days after
notice of payment.
Note: Prima facie evidence does not arise where notice
of nonpayment is not sent to the maker or drawer of the
check.
DUTY OF DRAWEE; RULES OF EVIDENCE
• It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check,
when refusing to pay the same to the holder
thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written,
printed, or stamped in plain language thereon, or
attached thereto, the reason for drawee’s dishonor
or refusal to pay the same.
• The fact of insufficient funds in such bank, such fact
shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of
dishonor or refusal.
• In all prosecutions under B.P. 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
HANDOUT 8: ANTI-BOUNCING CHECKS
LAW (B.P. 22) AND SWINDLING/ESTAFA
written, stamped or attached by the drawee on
such dishonored check.
• Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop
payment, the drawee shall state in the notice that
there were no sufficient funds in or credit with
such bank for the payment in full of such check, if
such be the fact.
Integrative Course for Regulatory Framework for Business Transactions (RFBT) Instructor: K. J-Culajara
• A person may be held liable for both estafa under
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code and violation
of B.P. Blg. 22 (Anti-Bouncing Checks Law.)
• A drawer who was acquitted or convicted under
Revised Penal Code for estafa may be prosecuted
under B.P. Blg. 22.

CREDIT
The word “credit” as used herein shall be construed
to mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank for
the payment of such check.

ESTAFA/SWINDLING UNDER THE REVISED

PENAL CODE
Any person who shall defraud another… by means
of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
fraud:
d. By postdating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had no
funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check. The failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
within 3 days from receipt of notice from the bank
and/or the payee of holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall
be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.

OTHER MATTERS
• Deceit or fraud is an element of estafa or
swindling.