WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES IN B.P. 22?

The presentation of the registry card, with an unauthorized

signature, does not meet the requiredproof beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner received such noticed, especially considering thathe denied receiving it.
(Suarez v. People 555, SCRA 238, June 19, 2008)

Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds is not conclusive

as it may be rebutted by fullpayment. (Tan vs. Philippine Commercial International
Bank 552 SCRA 532, April 23, 2008)

Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the
accused issued a check that wassubsequently dishonored. It must also establish that
the accused was actually notified that the checkwas dishonored, and that he or she
failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, topay the holder of the
check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment.

Prescription is a proper defense. The prescriptive period is 4 years

reckoned from the lapse of thefive (5) banking days from notice of dishonor within
which to make good the check.

Forgery of the signature appearing on the check (Ilusorio vs. Court of

Appeals, 353 SCRA 89)An agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored
checks is irrelevant to the prosecution forviolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
(Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30,2009)LACK OF
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF B.P.
22.(Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30, 2009)
NOVATION is not A PROPERDEFENSE IN B.P. 22

__________________________________________________________________________

But the issuer of the check is not left with remedies. Our Supreme Court has
sanctioned numerous defenses which have acquitted individuals charged with a
violation of BP 22. Possible defenses in an indictment include:

1) payment of the value of the dishonored check within five banking days from receipt
of the notice of dishonor;

2) payment of the value of the check before filing of the criminal case in court;

3) failure to serve a written notice of dishonor of the check to the issuer;

4) novation or change in the underlying obligation of the parties before the filing of the
criminal case in court;

5) a stop payment order pursuant to a valid reason such as non-delivery of goods or

services; and

6) knowledge by the payee that the check was not supported by sufficient funds when
the issuer issued the check.

_______________________________________________________________________

This defense was rightfully ignored by the Court of Appeals in its decision
affirming petitioner's conviction. As the Court of Appeals held, novation is not a
mode of extinguishing criminal liability and criminal liability, once incurred,
cannot be compromised.3 Indeed, there was no novation, and even if there was,
petitioner's liability under B.P. Blg. 22 was nor thereby extinguished.

It is well-settled that the following requisites must be present for novation to

take place: (1) a previous valid obligation; (2) agreement of all the parties to the new
contract; (3) extinguishment of the old contract; and (4) validity of the new one