BOUNCING CHECK LAW Lozano vs.

Martinez
(Batas Pambasa Bilang 22)
G.R. No. L- 63419 December 18, 1986
I. Constitutional Issues Yap, J.:
II. Scope
Facts:
III. Offenses Penalized
IV. Dishonor on other Grounds The constitutionality of BP 22, popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law, which was
V. Defenses approved on April 3, 1979, is the sole issue presented in these consolidated petitions for
VI. Criminal Prosecution decision.
VII. Proof of Damage Not Necessary
VIII. Novation as Defense These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses under the statute. The
IX. Liability of Corporate Officers defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash the information on theground that the
X. Violation of B.P. 22 may be a Ground for Disbarment acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being unconstitutional.
XI. Bouncing Checks Law is a Transitory and Continuing Crime
Issue:
I. Constitutional Issues: Whether or not B.P. 22 is constitutional
Held:
a. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt (Article III, Sec. 20 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution)- The enactment of BP22 is a valid exercise of police power and it is not repugnant to the
constitutional prohibition against imprisonment of debt. The trouble of the offense punished
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) Does not violate the principle against non- by BP22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check that is dishonored upon its
imprisonment for failure to pay contractual obligation but the circulation of a worthless presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes.
check which punishes in the exercise of police power of state to maintain confidence in The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is
checks. to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The law punishes
the act not as an offense against property, but as an offense against public order.

b. Double Jeopardy-

The drawer of worthless check can be prosecuted both for Estafa and for violation of B.P 22. He
will not be placed in double jeopardy, for there is no identity of offenses. While deceit and
damage are necessary requirements of estafa, they are not necessary for violation of B.P 22.

Ada vs. Virola
G.R. No. L- 82346-47 April 17, 1987
Fernan,  C.J.:
Facts:
Petitioner was initially charged for violations of BP 22 consisting in the issuance of 3 checks
which subsequently bounced. After the prosecution had rested its case and before the
presentation of evidence by the defense, petitioner again was charged for estafa based on the
same act of issuing 3 bouncing checks.
Petitioner maintains that his prosecution, first under Section 1 of BP 22 and again, under Article
315 par. 2(d) of the RPC, based on the same act of issuing 3 bouncing checks, violates his
constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a violation of Ada’s right against double jeopardy
Held:
No violation was committed against Ada in the case at bar.
Distinction between the two offenses is further found in their nature. Offense under Art. 318 par
2 (d) of the RPC is a malum in se requiring proof of criminal intent on the part of the offender as
an essential ingredient focusing mainly on the damage caused to the property rights of the
victim. The crime under BP 22 makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum
prohibition wherein criminal intent need not be proved because it is presumed and considered a
violation thereof as one committed against public interest.
No identity of offenses of estafa and BP 22 exists for which legal jeopardy in one case may be
invoked. Evidence required proving one offense is not the same evidence required to prove the
other.
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy
G.R. No. L-59568-76 January 11, 1990
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
Petitioner was charged for violation of BP 22 for having issued bouncing checks. Subsequently,
nine (9) other information for estafa under Article 315 of the revised Penal Code were filed
against him.
Issue:
Whether or not there is double jeopardy
Held:
There was no violation of double jeopardy. The rule on double jeopardy prohibits prosecution
for the same offense. Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC and BP. 22 are two different offenses.
Each crime sets out different elements. Deceit and damage are essential elements in estafa
while the same are not required in BP. 22. Under BP 22, the mere issuance of a check that is
dishonored gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued
the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2)
sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy. The accused may thus be
prosecuted and even convicted for both offenses.
c. Title of Batas Pambasa Bilang 22-
The second paragraph of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the issuance of a
check even if the drawer had sufficient funds or credit at the time of its issuance if he fails to
maintain such funds or credit to pay for the check if it is presented within ninety (90) days
from its date.

The title of Batas Pambasa Blg. 22 (B.P 22) reads follows
“An act Penalizing the Making of Drawing and Issuance of Check Without Sufficient Funds or
Credit and for Other Purposes.”
The title indicates that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 penalizes the issuance of check without
sufficient fund or credit. On the other hand, the second paragraph of Section 1 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 punish the issuance of a check with sufficient funds or credit of the drawer
fails to keep sufficient funds or credit if the drawer fails to keep sufficient funds or credit to
pay for the check if it is presented within ninety (90) days from its date. This is not reflected
in the title of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Thus, Assemblyman Arturo Tolentino opined that the
second paragraph of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is unconstitutional. (Record of
Batasan, March 22, 1979, p. 1899)
II. Scope:
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P 22) applies to all kinds of check, since the law makes no
distinction and it was enacted to restore confidence in checks.
 The law also applies to check drawee against an account of the drawee abroad if the
check was either drawn or issued or issued in the Philippines.
De Villa vs. CA
G.R. No. 87416 April 08, 1991
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the RTC of the National Capital Judicial
Region, Makati Branch 145, for violation of BP 22.
That petitioner willfully and feloniously made or drew and issued to Roberto Lorayez to
apply on account or for value a Depositors Trust Company Check No. 3371, payable to
herein complainant in the amount of $2,500.00 equivalent to P50,000.00
That petitioner, knowing well that at the time of issue he had no sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee-bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment which the check
when presented to the drawee back within 90 days from the date, was subsequently dishonored
for “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”.
Despite receipt of notice of such dishonor said petitioner failed to pay the amount of the said
check or to make arrangement for the full payment of the same within 5 banking days after
receiving the said notice.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the information on the following grounds:
a. Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
b. That no offense was committed since the check involved was payable
in dollars, hence, the obligation created is null and void pursuant to
RA 529 (an act to assure uniform value of the Philippine Coin and
Currency)
Issue:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Makati has jurisdiction over the case.
Held:
The court ruled in affirmative, citing the case of Lim vs Rodrigo, “that jurisdiction or venue is
determined by allegation in the information” The information under the consideration
specifically alleged that the offense was committed in Makati, and therefore, the same is
controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the failing of a complaint or information in
court which initiates or criminal action.
On the matter of venue for violation of BP 22, in the case of People vs. Yabut laid down the
following guidelines in Memo. Circular 4:

1. Venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed
and delivered;
2. The place where the check was written, signed, or dated does not
necessarily fix the place where it was executed, as what is of decisive importance is
the delivery which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. It
is undisputed that the check in question was executed and delivered by the
petitioner to the private respondent at the Makati, Metro Manila.
Under the Bouncing Checks Law, foreign checks, provided they are drawn and issued in
the Philippines though payable outside or made payable and dishonored in the
Philippines though drawn and issued outside, are within the coverage of the said law.
The law applies to check drawn against current accounts in foreign currency.
It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not
distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Where the law does make any exception,
courts may not, except compelling reasons exist to justify it.
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 likewise applies to memorandum checks.
People of the Philippines vs. Nitafan
G.R. No. 75954 October 22, 1992
Bellosillo,  .J.:
Facts:
Private respondent Lim was charged with violation of BP 22. Lim moved to quash the
Information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute a felony as BP 22
was unconstitutional and that the check he issued was a memorandum check which was
in the nature of a promissory note.
RTC ruled that BP 22 was unconstitutional and thus ordered to quash the Information.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari filed by the Solicitor General in behalf of the
government.
Issue:
Whether or not a memorandum check issued postdated in partial payment of a pre-
existing obligation is within the coverage of B.P 22
Held:
The constitutionality of the "Bouncing Check Law" has already been sustained by this
Court in Lozano v. Martinez: ““ A memorandum check is in the form of an ordinary
check, with the word "memorandum", "memo" or "mem" written across its face,
signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay the bona fide holder absolutely,
without any condition concerning its presentment.
A memorandum check comes within the meaning of Sec. 185 of the NIL which defines a check as
"a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. Such a check is an evidence of debt
against the drawer, and although may not be intended to be presented, has the same effect as
an ordinary check, and if passed to a third person, will be valid in his hands like any other
check.”
From the above definition, it is clear that a memorandum check, which is in the form of an
ordinary check, is still drawn on a bank and should therefore be distinguished from a promissory
note, which is but a mere promise to pay.
A memorandum check must therefore fall within the ambit of BP 22 which does not distinguish
but merely provides that "any person who makes or draws and issues any check knowing at the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee-bank . . . which
check is subsequently dishonored
Hence, it does not matter whether the check issued is in the nature of a memorandum as
evidence of indebtedness or whether it was issued in partial fulfillment of a pre-existing
obligation, for what the law punishes is the issuance itself of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere
act of issuing a worthless check, whether as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an evidence of
a pre-existing debt, is malum prohibitum.
BAR QUESTION (2010)
A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her
favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that the check would not
be honored because B’s account had just been closed. The two then approached trader C whom
they asked to change the check with cash, even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at
P85,000.00 with the assurance that the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s
presentment of the check for payment on due date, it was dishonored because the account had
already been closed. What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account
for the loss of her P85,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B who drew the postdated check
against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and with knowledge at the time he issued the
check that the account thereof is already closed. A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he
was a mere endorser of B‟s check to C who exchanged the check in cash. BP 22 does not apply
to endorser of checks. Hence only a civil action may be filed by C against A to recover the
P85,000.00. Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of a
worthless check, under the given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a credit
transaction for a pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a
check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.
 The law applies to checks issued to guarantee the payment of an obligation
Que vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 75217-18 September 21, 1987
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
Que issued a check, which bounced. He alleged that the court has no jurisdiction to try
the case because the checks that he issued were deposited outside of Quezon City, the
place of issuance. He also denied liability because, according to him, his purpose in
issuing the said checks was to guarantee only the payment of the purchases made by
Powerhouse Supply, Inc. in which, he is a manager.
The lower court found Que guilty of the crime charged. On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. The case was elevated to the
Supreme Court that also denied the motion for Review on Certiorari of the decision of
the CA and resolution that affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Quezon City, convicting
herein petitioner of the crime of violating BP 22 on two (2) counts.
Issue:
Whether or not B.P 22 covers the act of merely issuing a check to guarantee payment
Held:
It is now settled that BP 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued
merely in the form of a deposit or guarantee. The history of the enactment of subject
statute evinces the definite legislative intent to make the prohibition all-embracing,
without making any exception from the operation thereof in favor of a guarantee. BB 22
was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks, to prevent checks from
becoming useless “scraps of paper”, and to restore respectability to checks, all without
distinctions to the purpose of the issuance of the checks.
 It applies to a check issued as collateral for a loan. This holds true even if the drawer
issued the check as guarantee for the accounts of third parties.
Caridad vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 90630 September 10, 1990
Paras,  .J.:

 This holds true even if the drawer issued the check as guarantee for the accounts of
third parties (People vs. Macatangay, 1 SCRA 237).
People vs. Macatangay
People v. Macatangay, 107 Phil. 188
G.R. No. 75217-18 September 21, 1987
Paras,  .J.:
 The application of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 extends to crossed checks (memorandum
circular No. 4)
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 to undated checks. Under section 6 of the negotiable
Instrument law, the validity of a negotiable instrument Law, the validity of a negotiable
instrument is not affected by the fact it is undated. (Dela Cruz vs. People, G.R. No.86806,
July 19, 1989)
Dela Cruz vs. People
G.R. No. 86806 July 19, 1989
Paras,  .J.:
 The law also applies if the name of the payee was left blank at the time of the its
issuance. (State vs. Donaldson, 385 P2d 151.) Under Section 14 of the Negotiable
Instrument Law, it is presumed that the person in possession of the check has authority
to complete it by writing the name of the payee.
 The law does not apply where the check was issued to cover required warranty deposit
given by the complainant to enable the drawer to import equipment financed on a
lease-purchase basis where the drawer never rook out the warranty deposit when he
failed to pay the rent on the equipment and payee turned out to be the financier itself.
{Magno vs. CA, 210 SCRA 471 [ 1992])
Magno vs. CA
G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Magno was in the process of putting up a car repair shop sometime in April
1983, but he did not have the complete equipment that could make his venture
workable and he lacked the funds with which to purchase the necessary equipment to
make such business operational. Petitioner approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of
Mancor Industries, for his needed car repair service equipment of which Mancor was a
distributor. Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation advising
its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing and able to supply the pieces of
equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate the petitioner and provide him
credit facilities. He arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up
a warranty deposit equivalent to thirty per centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces
of the equipment to be purchased amounting to P29,790.00. Since petitioner could not
come up with such amount, he requested Joey Gomez, on a personal level, to look for a
third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit,
however, unknown to petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in
question, on condition that the same would be paid as short term loan at 3% interest.
As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement
whereby LS would lease the garage equipment and petitioner would pay the
corresponding rent with option to buy the same.
The equipment was delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a postdated check and
gave it to Gomez, who unknown to Magno, delivered the same to Teng. When the check
matured Magno requested Gomez not to deposit the same as he was no longer banking
with Pacific Bank. To replace the first check issued, petitioner issued another set of six
(6) postdated checks, two of which were cleared and four of which are the subject of
this controversy. Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals,
thus it pulled out the garage equipment. It was then on this occasion that petitioner
became aware that Corazon Teng was the one who advanced the warranty deposit.
Petitioner with his wife went to see Corazon Teng and promised to pay the later but the
payment never came and when the four checks were deposited they were dishonored.
Issue:
Whether or not the checks were issued to apply “on account or for value” as to be
criminally liable under B.P 22
Held:
No. By the nature of the “warranty deposit” amounting to P29,790.00 corresponding to
30% of the “purchase/lease” value of the equipments subject of the transaction, it is
obvious that the “cash out” made by Mrs. Teng was not used by the petitioner who was
just paying rentals for the equipment. It would have been different if petitioner opted to
purchase the pieces of equipment on or about the termination of the lease-purchase
agreement in which case he had to pay the additional amount of the warranty deposit
which should have formed part of the purchase price. As the transaction, did not ripen
into a purchase, but remained a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned equipment,
which was pulled out by the lessor, when the petitioner failed to continue paying
possibly due to economic constraints or business failure, then it is lawful and just that
the warranty deposit should not be charged against the petitioner. To charge petitioner
for the refund of a “warranty deposit” which he did not withdraw as it was not his own
account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust “debt”,
to say the least, since petitioner did not receive the amount in question.
The crux of the matter rest upon the reason for the drawing of the postdated checks by
the petitioner, i.e. whether they were drawn or issued “to apply on account or for
value” as required under Section 1 of BP 22. When viewed against the definition of
catch-terms “warranty” and “deposit”, for which the post-dated checks were issued or
drawn, all the more, the alleged crime could not have been committed.
III. Offenses Penalized:
a. Elements:
 First offense- the elements of the first offense penalizes by B.P Blg. 22 are the
following:
i. A person draws and issues a check;
ii. The check is applied on account or for value;
iii. The person issuing the check KNOWS at the time of its issuance that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank for the full
payment of the check upon its present merit; and
iv. The check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer, without valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
 Second offense- the elements of the second offense penalizes by B.P Blg. 22 are
the following:
i. A person DRAWS AND ISSUES a check at a time when he had sufficient
funds in or credit with the bank;
ii. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain sufficient credit to cover
the full payment of the check if presented within ninety (90) days from
the date appearing in it; and
iii. for such reason the check is DISHONORED by the bank.
NOTE:
 Drawer- Only the person who issued the worthless check is liable under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22. Indorsers are not liable.
 Under Section 1 of B.P Blg. 22, in case of Corporations, Partnership, Companies, and
Entities, the person who actually signed the check are the ones criminally liabl.e.
 Account or value- in defining the first offense, the law requires the check be issued on
account or for value. The word “account” refers to a pre-existing obligation, while the
phrase “for value” refers to an obligation incurred simultaneously with the issuance of
the check. If the check was given as a donation and was dishonored, the drawer is not
criminally liable, since the check was not issued on account or for value.
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 applies even to checks issued as payment for the obligation of a
third party whom the drawer accommodated. ( People vs. Mancerra, 2 SCRA 444.)
People vs. Mancerra
G.R. No. 86806 July 19, 1989
Paras,  .J.:
 There must be a valid consideration for the issuance of check or it to be covered by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Thus, a drawer who issued a worthless check in payment of a
gambling is not criminally liable, since it was issued in consideration of an illicit
obligation. (People vs. Pareja, 1 SCRA 205).
People vs. Pareja
G.R. No. 86806 July 19, 1989
Paras,  .J.:
 Where the drawer of a postdated check leased equipment from a financing company, a
third person, unknown to him, put up the warranty deposit for the lease being
required by the financing company, the lease was terminated for non-payment of the
rent, and the drawer of the postdated check issued it to reimburse the third party for
the warranty deposit, he cannot be held criminally liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
in case the check is dishonored. He should not refund the warranty deposit, as he
never cashed the warranty deposit. (Magno vs. Court of Appeals)
Magno vs. CA
G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Magno was in the process of putting up a car repair shop sometime in April
1983, but he did not have the complete equipment that could make his venture
workable and he lacked the funds with which to purchase the necessary equipment to
make such business operational. Petitioner approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of
Mancor Industries, for his needed car repair service equipment of which Mancor was a
distributor. Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation advising
its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing and able to supply the pieces of
equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate the petitioner and provide him
credit facilities. He arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up
a warranty deposit equivalent to thirty per centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces
of the equipment to be purchased amounting to P29,790.00. Since petitioner could not
come up with such amount, he requested Joey Gomez, on a personal level, to look for a
third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit,
however, unknown to petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in
question, on condition that the same would be paid as short term loan at 3% interest.
As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement
whereby LS would lease the garage equipment and petitioner would pay the
corresponding rent with option to buy the same.
The equipment was delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a postdated check and
gave it to Gomez, who unknown to Magno, delivered the same to Teng. When the check
matured Magno requested Gomez not to deposit the same as he was no longer banking
with Pacific Bank. To replace the first check issued, petitioner issued another set of six
(6) postdated checks, two of which were cleared and four of which are the subject of
 this controversy. Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals,
thus it pulled out the garage equipment. It was then on this occasion that petitioner
became aware that Corazon Teng was the one who advanced the warranty deposit.
Petitioner with his wife went to see Corazon Teng and promised to pay the later but the
payment never came and when the four checks were deposited they were dishonored.
Issue:
Whether or not the checks were issued to apply “on account or for value” as to be
criminally liable under B.P 22
Held:
No. By the nature of the “warranty deposit” amounting to P29,790.00 corresponding to
30% of the “purchase/lease” value of the equipments subject of the transaction, it is
obvious that the “cash out” made by Mrs. Teng was not used by the petitioner who was
just paying rentals for the equipment. It would have been different if petitioner opted to
purchase the pieces of equipment on or about the termination of the lease-purchase
agreement in which case he had to pay the additional amount of the warranty deposit
which should have formed part of the purchase price. As the transaction did not ripen
into a purchase, but remained a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned equipment,
which was pulled out by the lessor, when the petitioner failed to continue paying
possibly due to economic constraints or business failure, then it is lawful and just that
the warranty deposit should not be charged against the petitioner. To charge petitioner
for the refund of a “warranty deposit” which he did not withdraw as it was not his own
account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust “debt”,
to say the least, since petitioner did not receive the amount in question.
The crux of the matter rest upon the reason for the drawing of the postdated checks by
the petitioner, i.e. whether they were drawn or issued “to apply on account or for
value” as required under Section 1 of BP 22. When viewed against the definition of
catch-terms “warranty” and “deposit”, for which the post-dated checks were issued or
drawn, all the more, the alleged crime could not have been committed.
 Funds or credit, meaning of. Even if the drawer does not have sufficient funds, if he has
sufficient credit with the bank to pay for a check he issued, he does not violate the law.
He might have an arrangement with the bank that the deposit in his savings account will
be applied to pay for any check he issues (Record of Batasan, December 4, 1978, p.
1043). In such case, if the bank erroneously dishonored the check because it overlooked
that there was such an arrangement, the drawer will not be criminally liable (Record of
Batasan, August 9, 1978, p. 507).
Even if the drawer had no funds in or credit with the bank at the time of the issuance of
the check, if he deposited sufficient funds to cover the value of the check and the check
was honored upon its presentment, he is not criminally liable (Record of Batasan,
February 6, 1979, p. 1363).
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 will apply in case the drawer closed his account after issuing a
check and before it was presented for payment, for the drawer failed to keep funds
sufficient for the payment of the check (Miller vs. Court of Appeals,189 SCRA xi).
Miller vs. CA
G.R. No. 90562 July 09, 1990
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
Anita Miller was charged in six informations for violation of BP 22 for the alleged
issuance of six checks for the total amount of P140,000 which were
subsequently dishonored by the drawee-bank because of the closure of her
bank account.
The Trial Court found her guilty and Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling: BP 22
applies to checks dishonored not only for “insufficiency of funds” but also by
reason of the closure of the drawer’s account.”
Issue:
 Whether or not B.P 22 applies to checks dishonored by reason of the closure of
the drawer’s account
Held:
Yes, BP 22 applies. Section 1 BP 22 provides:
Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply for an
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, shall by
penalized.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having
sufficient funds or credit with the drawee-bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain 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.
The intent of the legislature in enacting BP 22 is to penalize all issuances of bad or
worthless checks. There can be no serious dispute as to the correctness of the CA’s
ruling that the failure of a drawer to maintain an open bank account manifests precisely
his failure to keep funds in, or credit with, the drawee-bank sufficient for the payment of
the check issued by him.
“Even applying simple logic, if a person is criminally liable under the law for issuing
checks without sufficient funds, with more reason should he be held criminally liable for
issuing checks without funds or for closing his account with a bank after issuing checks
and before they fall due.”
If the check in question is a post-dated check, it is not necessary to establish that the drawer
knew when he issued the check that he would not have sufficient funds to pay for it upon its
presentment (People vs. Laggui,).
People vs. Laggui
G.R. No. 76262-63 March 16, 1989
Griño-Aquino  J.:
Facts:
The accused (now private respondent) Eliseo F. Soriano is a minister of the
"Church of God in Jesus Christ, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth in the
Philippines." He first met the offended party Lolita O. Hizon in July or August,
1983, when her godson, Arcadio Mallari, who is a member of Soriano's
congregation, introduced the latter to her. Hizon became interested in Soriano's
religious group and became a member thereof on November 27, 1983.
In the second week of August 1983, Soriano confided to Hizon his worries about
his indebtedness of P250,000 to Dr. and Mrs. Zoilo Pangilinan. The obligation
was secured by a mortgage on the congregation's property which would mature
on October 4, 1983. Hizon offered to help. She agreed to lend P250,000 in cash
to Soriano who would issue a post-dated check to her for the same amount.
To raise the P250,000, Hizon borrowed against her time deposit at the Unity
Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (USLA). Since she and her husband were
leaving for the United States on a short trip in August 1983, she signed the
necessary papers for the loan before their departure. She also executed a
Special Power of Attorney authorizing her daughter, Rose Anne Hizon, to receive
from USLA the P250,000 check representing the proceeds of her loan and to
endorse and deliver it to Soriano upon Soriano's issuing to her a post-dated
check for the same amount of P250,000. Accordingly, on October 4, 1983, Rose
Anne got the P250,000 check from the USLA, endorsed it to Soriano who issued,
in exchange therefore, his Banco Filipino check for the same amount. His check
was undated.
When Lolita Hizon arrived from her trip on October 16, 1983, she asked Soriano
why his check bore no date. Soriano told her to date it "July 18, 1984" so he
would have sufficient time to fund it. When Hizon deposited the check on that
date, the drawee-bank dishonored it because Soriano's account with it had been
closed as of July 10, 1984, or one week before the due date of the check.
During the trial on the merits, Soriano admitted that when he issued the check
he did not have enough funds in the bank, and that he failed to deposit the
needed amount to cover it. He alleged that he issued the check as "a temporary
receipt for what he had received" Despite repeated demands to make good his
check, or to replace it with cash, Soriano did neither.
Soriano was thereafter charged by the Provincial Fiscal in two separate
informations, for violation of BP 22 and estafa. After a joint trial of the two
cases, respondent Judge Pedro Laggui of RTC Pampanga promulgated a joint
decision: (1) dismissing the information in Criminal Case No. 2934 (for violation
of BP 22) for being "fatally defective"; and (2) convicting the accused of estafa in
Criminal Case No. 3007.
The trial court ruled that the accused could not be convicted of a violation of the
Bouncing Checks Law, BP 22, because the information failed to allege that he
knew, when he issued the check, that he would not have sufficient funds for its
payment in full upon its presentment to the drawee-bank. In the opinion of the
trial judge Laggui, the information did not charge an offense, hence, he
dismissed it.
The accused appealed the decision in Criminal Case No. 3007 to the Court of
Appeals, which on July 26, 1988, reversed and set aside the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, thereby acquitting the accused Eliseo Soriano.
The State filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the
dismissal of the allegedly defective information in Criminal Case No. 2934 and
praying that the trial court be ordered to reinstate the case and render
judgment as the law and the evidence warrant.
Respondent Judge filed his own Comments on the petition to defend his order
in the case. The accused adopted the Judge's comments as his own.
Issue:
Whether or not the information in Criminal Case No. 2934 is indeed "fatally
defective."
Held:
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, the State alleges that the
information is sufficient, hence, respondent Judge committed an error of law,
and/or gravely abused his discretion, in dismissing Criminal Case No. 2934. We
agree.
The accused was charged with having violated BP 22, which provides:
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. — Any person who makes or
draws and issues 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 in full upon 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, shall be punished
by imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than on (1) year
or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check
which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

The elements of the offense are:
1. the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or
for value,
2. the maker, drawer or issuer knows 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, and
3. the 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.
The "defect" which respondent Judge perceived in the information was the
failure to allege that the accused, as maker or drawer of the check at the time of
issue, knew of the insufficiency of his funds in the bank for payment of the
check in full "upon its presentment". In the court's opinion, it was not enough
for the information to have alleged that the accused knew when he issued the
check that he then did not have sufficient funds in the bank; the information
should have alleged that the accused knew that he would not have sufficient
funds in the bank to pay the check in full "upon its presentment." It believed
that the absence of an allegation that the accused foresaw or had
foreknowledge of the insufficiency of his bank account upon presentment of the
check for payment was fatal to the information.
The interpretation is erroneous. Section 2 of the law provides:
Section 2. 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
ninety (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
payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
In other words, the presence of the first and third elements of the offense
constitutes prima facie evidence that the second element exists. The maker's
knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the
dishonor of his check for insufficiency of funds. *** THUS, if the check in
question is a postdated check, it is not necessary to establish that the drawer
knew when he issued the check that he would not have sufficient funds to pay
for it upon its presentment.
This Court has ruled that:
Violation of the bad checks act is committed when one 'makes or draws and
issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue
that he does not have sufficient funds' or '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
ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee-bank.'" (People vs. Manzanilla, 156 SCRA 279, 282.)
The GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE under BP 22 is the act of making and issuing
a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for
payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum
prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and
inimical to public welfare.
Since the information in Criminal Case No. 2934 did allege that the accused, for
value received, unlawfully and feloniously issued the postdated check "knowing
fully well that he had no funds and/or insufficient funds in the bank . . . and
when the said check was presented for encashment, said check was dishonored
and returned with the information that the said check is drawn against 'CLOSE
ACCOUNT' . . ." the information satisfies the legal definition of the offense under
Section 1, BP 22. It is sufficient. The trial court erred in dismissing it.

However, although its (trial Court’s) decision is erroneous, that decision may not
be annulled or set aside because it amounted to a judgment of acquittal. It
became final and executory upon its promulgation. The State may not appeal
that decision for it would place the accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for
the offense in violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy (Art.
III, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution).
Since in the present case the accused Eliseo Soriano had been arraigned,
pleaded "not guilty," and was tried upon a valid and sufficient information
(although the lower court erroneously thought otherwise) and the case against
him was dismissed by decision of the trial court (hence, without his consent and
not upon his motion), he has been placed in jeopardy or danger of punishment
for the offense charged. For this Court to re-assess the evidence against him
pursuant to the Government's appeal, would place him twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense.
Although the dismissal of the information against him may constitute a
miscarriage of justice, the erroneous dismissal by the trial court may not be
disturbed for it would violate his basic constitutional right to be exempt from
double jeopardy.
Petition for review of the trial court's decision is DENIED.
 Knowledge, meaning of. To be liable for the offense penalized by Section 1 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, the drawer must know at the time of the issuance of the check that
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank.
Thus, where a wife co-signed with her husband a check which was dishonored for lack of
funds, she could not be convicted under Batas Pambansa Blg.22 where she was not
aware of the transaction of her husband which was the basis of the issuance of the
check and of the dishonor of the check (Dingle vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148
SCRA 597).
Since knowledge involves the internal state of the mind, it is difficult to prove
knowledge. To facilitate the task of the prosecution, Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
created the presumption that the drawer knew he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the bank if he fails to make good the check within five (5) banking days after
being notified that the check had been dishonored for lack of funds. (Lozano vs.
Martinez, 146 SCRA 322)
The failure of the drawer to make good the check within five (5) days after being
notified of its dishonor is not an element of the offense penalized by Batas Pambansa
Blg.22. It is merely evidentiary. It merely creates a presumption.
Caras vs. CA
G.R. No. 148557 August 07, 2003
Ynares-Santiago, J.:
Facts:
CARAS appealed the judgment of the RTC which was affirmed in toto by the CA
finding her guilty of 15 counts of violation of BP 22. The accused admitted that she
issued the 15 checks. She claimed, however, that the same were given to a certain
Marivic Nakpil, alleged sister of the complainant, as “guarantee deposit”, that is, for
every gift check and purchase order given to the accused, she issued personal checks
to guarantee its payment. The checks are not to be encashed or deposited with any
bank. Petitioner also denies having received any notice that the checks she issued had
been dishonored by the drawee bank
Issues:
King vs. People
1. Whether or not a check issued merely to guarantee payment
of an existing obligation is covered by BP 22. G.R. No. 131540 December 02, 1999
2. Whether the prosecution evidence suffices to convict the
Panganiban, J.:
accused
Facts:
Held:
On several occasions in January 1992, petitioner discounted with complainant Ellen
1. YES. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum and is
Fernandez several Equitable Bank checks postdated from July 23 to 29, 1992 in the total
punishable under BP, provided the other elements of the offense are properly
amount of P1,070,000.00 in exchange for cash in the amount of P1,000,000.00. When
proved. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
the checks were deposited for payment, they were dishonored by the drawee bank
purpose for the check was issued, nor the terms and conditions for its issuance.
because they were drawn against an account with insufficient funds. Petitioner failed to
2. After carefully going over the records of the case, the Court found out that indeed
make good the checks despite demand. During the hearing on the merits of the case,
no clear evidence is shown on whether the petitioner was informed that her checks
the prosecution offered in evidences its documentary evidence the genuineness and
had been dishonored. The omission or neglect on the part of the prosecution
due execution of which was admitted by the petitioner. Petitioner filed a demurrer to
to present evidence that would establish the actual receipt by the accused of the
evidence without leave of court which was denied. Consequently, she was found guilty
demand letter which could have served as notice to her was fatal to its cause.
by the trial court which was also affirmed by the CA.
The absence of proof that the accused received any notice informing her of the fact
Issue:
that her checks had been dishonored and giving her 5 banking days within which to
make arrangements for the payment of the said check prevents the application of
Whether or not the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to warrant conviction of the
the disputable presumption that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds
accused
at the time she issued the checks. Absent such presumption, the burden shifts to the
prosecution to prove that petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds
Held:
when she issued the said checks, otherwise, she cannot be held liable under the law.
The elements of the crime are as follows:
The absence of any notice of dishonor personally sent to and received by the
accused is a violation of the accused right to due process. a. The accused makes, draws, or issues any check to apply to account or for value;
b. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
Failure of the prosecution to prove that the accused was given the requisite notice or credit; or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
of dishonor is a clear ground for her acquittal. drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment;
c. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have
sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee bank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment.
Under BP 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that
was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually
notified that the check was dishonored, and that s/he failed, within 5 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. Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a
prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper.
It is true that the complainant sent petitioner a registered mail informing the latter that
the check had been dishonored. But the records show that the petitioner did not receive
it.
Ting vs. CA
G.R. No. 140665 November 13, 2000
Melo, J.:
Facts:
From 1991 to 1992, Juliet Ting obtained loans in the aggregate sum of P2, 750,000.00
from private complainant Tagle for use in Juliet’s furniture business. As payment
thereof, Juliet issued 11 post-dated checks which upon maturity, were dishonored for
reasons of insufficiency of funds. She was then subsequently prosecuted for violation
of BP 22.
Due to her financial difficulties, she requested her husband Victor Ting and her sister
Emily Chan (petitioners herein) to take over her furniture business, including the
obligation appurtenant thereto. Agreeing to Juliet’s request, petitioners issued 19
checks in replacement of the 11 checks earlier issued by Juliet. The planned takeover,
however, did not materialize. Petitioners requested Juliet to reassume her obligation
to private complainant by replacing the checks they had previously issued to the latter.
Juliet replaced the 19 checks issued by petitioners with 23 Far East Bank checks.
Petitioners then requested complainant to return the checks they had issued to her.
Instead of returning the checks, Tagle deposited 7 of the checks with MetroBank where
they were dishonored for having drawn against insufficient funds.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution must prove receipt by the drawer of notice of
dishonor.
Held:
It is necessary in cases for violation of BP 22 that the prosecution prove that the issuer
had received a notice of dishonor. It is a general rule that when notice of dishonor is an
issue, the person alleging the notice was served must prove its existence. For BP 22
cases, there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, it is a general rule that, when
service of a notice is sought to be made by mail, it should appear that the conditions on
which the validity of such service depends on their existence, otherwise the evidence is
insufficient to establish the fact of service.
Petitioners, during trial denied having received the demand letter. Given petitioners’
denial of the receipt of the demand letter, it behooved the prosecution to present proof
that the demand letter was indeed sent through registered mail and that petitioners
received the same. The prosecution failed to do this. Instead, it merely presented the
demand letter and registry return receipt as if mere presentation of the same is
equivalent to proof that some sort of mail matter was received by petitioners. Receipts
for registered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves; they must be
properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters.
IV. Dishonor on other grounds:
 If the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank, he
cannot evade prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 by maneuvering to
have the check dishonored on some other grounds. Section 3 of Batas
 Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the bank to state always in the notice of dishonor character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted the partial
if there are no sufficient funds or credit to pay for the check, even if the payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed.
check is being dishonored for some other reason.
 Thus, if the check would have been dishonored for lack of funds but the ANSWER:
drawer stopped its payment, he will still be criminally liable if the check was Mr. Ed is liable of one count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) for the issuance of the
dishonored on this ground. However, if the drawer had a valid reason to first 3 checks because he issued them simultaneous with the transaction in order to
stop the payment of the check, he will not be criminally liable. defraud another. However, the 2 other checks had been issued in payment of a
(Memorandum Circular No. 4.) preexisting obligation, hence, estafa is not committed as the issuance of said checks
 If the drawer varied his signature in signing the check and the check was was not the efficient cause of defraudation. Mr. Ed is also liable of 5 counts of
dishonored for this reason, he will still be criminally liable if he actually did violation of BP 22, The Bouncing Checks Law, for the issuance of the 5 checks which
not have sufficient funds or credit to pay for the check. (Record of Batasan, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance
August 9, 1978, p. 507) of a worthless or bum check; deceit/fraud is not an element. Mr. Ed’s defense of
partial payments constituting novation and absence of demand letter will not free
BAR QUESTION (2011) him from the criminal liability already incurred. The partial payments would only
affect his civil liability while his claim of absence of demand letter is negated by the
Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of plumbing receipt of notice of dishonour.
materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of Mr. Benjie,
visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in the total
amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3)
V. Defenses:
postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance of
Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie,
a. Available Defenses
as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The
 Force- if the drawer was forced to issue the check, he incurs no criminal
following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated
liability under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because his act was not
checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same
voluntary.
assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. When
the checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of
 Force Majeure- If the check was dishonored because of the occurrence
funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One
of a force majeure after its issuance, the drawer is not criminally liable.
month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the
(Record of Batasan, December 4, 1978, p. 1038) Thus, if the check was
checks. Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint
dishonored because the current account of the drawer was garnished
against Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed. During the
after its issuance, the drawer was garnished after its issuance, the
preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several amounts from Mr. Ed as
drawer incurs no criminal liability. (Record of Batasan, August 9, 1978,
partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and insisted that the complaint
p. 508). The same holds true if after the issuance of the check, the
should continue despite the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters
drawer was declared insolvent, an assignee took charge of his assets,
that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely civil in
including his
  current account and for this reason the check was dishonored. His
current account is in custodia legis.
o Likewise, if an account of a quarrel between a married couple
with a joint current account the wife withdrew all the funds
from their account without the consent of the husband and as a
result a check previously issued by the husband was
dishonored, the husband cannot be convicted. (State vs.
Haremza, 515 P2d 1217.)
BAR QUESTION (2013)
Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued
a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction.
Two days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds
and requested that the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric
deposited the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite
demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Big.
22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). Was the charge brought against Frank correct?
ANSWER:
Yes, the charges brought against Frank is correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum
prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a
defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the purpose
for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the
issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason, the
request of Frankto defer the deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will
not militate against his prosecution for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be
charged. Moreover, if what is charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the
offended party, cannot be held criminally liable under Article 332, RPC.
b. Unavailable Defenses
 Informing Payee- if a check was postdated and before its maturity, the
drawer informedthe payee he would not be able to deposit sufficient
funds to cover the amount of the check, he will still be criminally liable.
(Record of Batasan, August 9, 1978, Op. 503).
 Partial Payment- Partial payment by the drawer of the value of the
dishonored check isNot a defense. (Resolution No. 340, Series of 1981).
VI. Criminal Prosecution:
 Number of Offenses- Each act of drawing a worthless check constitutes
a separate violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.22. The rule that there is
only one offense when the offender is actuated by one criminal intent is
not applicable to special laws. (Memorandum Circular No. 4.)
 Venue- The court of the place where the worthless check was issued or
the court of the place where it was deposited has jurisdiction to try a
criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (Que vs. People,
154 SCRA 160; People vs. Manzanilla, 156 SCRA 279; People vs. Grospe.
157 SCRA 154; Limn vs. Rodrigo, 157 SCRA 487; Reyes vs. Court of
APPEALS, G.R NO. 88378, JULY 9, 1989.
Que vs. People
G.R. No. 75217-18 September 21, 1987
Paras, J.:
Facts:
Que issued a check, which bounced. He alleged that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case
because the checks that he issued were deposited outside of Quezon City, the place of issuance.
He also denied liability because, according to him, his purpose in issuing the said checks was to
guarantee only the payment of the purchases made by Powerhouse Supply, Inc. in which, he is a
manager.
The lower court found Que guilty of the crime charged. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the
CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court that
also denied the motion for Review on Certiorari of the decision of the CA and resolution that
affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Quezon City, convicting herein petitioner of the crime of
violating BP 22 on two (2) counts.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the RTC of Quezon City has jurisdiction over said controversy
2. Whether or not BP 22 covers the act of merely issuing a check to guarantee payment
Held:
1. Jurisdiction could be had by the RTC of Quezon City even if the checks were not
deposited and encashed in Quezon City because, said checks were issued at Quezon City. This
fact was admitted by petitioner in his answer to the civil complaint for collection of sum of
money; he inferentially admitted that the purchases and issuance of the check in question were
made at Francis Hill Supply located at No. 194 Speaker Perez St. Quezon City. Thus, it is no
moment, whether said checks were deposited by the complainant in a bank located outside of
Quezon City. The determinative factor is the place of issuance which is Quezon City and
therefore, within the court’s jurisdiction.
2. As to petitioner’s second issue, it is likewise untenable. It is now settled that BP 22
applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued merely in the form of a deposit or
guarantee. The history of the enactment of subject statute evinces the definite legislative intent
to make the prohibition all-embracing, without making any exception from the operation
thereof in favor of a guarantee. BB 22 was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing
checks, to prevent checks from becoming useless “scraps of paper”, and to restore respectability
to checks, all without distinctions to the purpose of the issuance of the checks.
 Intervention of offended party- Since the payee of a worthless check is
entitled to receive the payment of the money for which a dishonored
check was issued, he can intervene through the appearance of a private
prosecutor in a criminal prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22. (Banal vs. Tadeo.)
BANAL VS. TADEO
G.R. No. 78911-25, December 11, 1987
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
FACTS:
Fifteen information for violation of BP 22 were filed against Rosario Claudio before the RTC of
Quezon City assigned to Branch 84. The judge of said branch inhibited himself, and was re-
raffled to Branch 105 presided by Judge Serquina. JudgeTadeo then replaced Judge Serquina. On
08 January 1987, the RTC issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito Bustos as
private prosecutor on the ground that the charge does not provide for any civil liability or
indemnity.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. Respondent Claudio filed her
opposition to the motion. The court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the
appearance of a private prosecutor.
RULING:
YES. Petitioner contends that every man criminally liable is also civilly liable, and hence
indemnity may be recovered from the offender regardless of whether or not BP 22 so provides.
On the other hand, respondents argue that BP 22 is an offense against public order and hence, it
is the State and the public that are the principal complainants; hence, there is no civil liability.
Civil liability arises not so much because the act or omission is a crime, but because it caused
damage to another. What gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and the moral
duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his own
act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by IX. Liability of Corporate Officers:
law. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of the civil action. Such is not the
case in criminal actions for, to be criminally liable, it is enough that the act or omission
The person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of a corporation,
complained of is punishable, regardless of whether or not it also causes material damage to
company or entity is liable under BP 22. {[Llamado vs. CA SCRA 423 [1997]}.
another. Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so provides, indemnification of
the offended party may be had on account of the damage, loss or injury directly suffered as a
consequence of the wrongful act of another. The payee of the check is entitled to receive the
payment of money for which the worthless check was issued. Having been caused the damage, X. Violation of B.P. 22 may be a ground for disbarment:
she is entitled to recompense. The framers of the law could not have intended to leave the
offended private party defrauded and empty-handed by excluding the civil liability of the The bouncing check issued by respondent gave rise to at least 9 criminal
offender. information’s for estafa or violation of BP 22 against respondent, disbarment and
Civil Service disciplinary proceedings may proceed without legal obstacle although
VII. Proof of Damage Not Necessary: the criminal cases are still pending in court. (De Jesus vs. Collado, 216 SCRA 619
{1992]}.
Even if the payee suffered no damage as a result of the issuance of the bouncing
check, the damage to the integrity to the banking system cannot be denied. Damage
to the payee is not an element of the crime punished in PB 22 (Vaca vs. CA, 298 XI. Bouncing Checks Law is a Transitory and Continuing Crime:
SCRA 656 (1998).
BP 22 is a transitory or a continuous offense, and the theory is that a person
In the prosecution violating BP 22, complianant’s sole testimony suffices to identify indicted with a transitory offense may be validity tried in any jurisdiction where the
the dishonored checks and unless rebutted, the prosecution may rely on such offense was in part committed. (Uy vs. CA, 276 SCRA 367 [1997]; Ibasco vs. CA, 261
presumption to establish that element of the offense charged. It is for petitioner, as SCRA 449 [1996]).
accused, to rebut the presumption, disputable as it is. (Tadeo vs. People, 300 SCRA
744, 1998.)

VIII. Novation as Defense:

The “Novation Theory” does not apply where the offer to pay he debtor, which was
accepted by the creditor, turned out to be only an empty promise which was
effectively delayed the aggrieved party’s filing of a case for violation of PB 22
{Llamado vs. CA 270 SCRA 423,[1997]}