B.P.

22 Bouncing Checks Law RFBT

Bouncing Checks Law
BP Blg. 22

Who are liable?

1. 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 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. ( Sec. 1 1st par, BP22)
2. Any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and
issues a check,
• 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. ( Sec. 1 2nd par, BP22)
3. Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed
the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable. ( Sec. 1 3rd par, BP22)

Penalty for BP 22 violation ( Sec. 1 BP 22)

1. Imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or
2. 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
3. Both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Elements of the offense under BP 22

1. Making, drawing, and issuing any check to apply on account or for value
a. The first element, i.e., making, drawing, and issuance of any check, requires that the check be
properly described in the Information to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. Without a sufficient identification of the dishonored check in the
Information, the conviction of the accused should be set aside for being violative of the
constitutional requirement of due process. (Ongson v. People G.R. No. 156169. August 12, 2005)
b. The Supreme Court has held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration, which may consist
either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or
some forbearance, detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered
or undertaken by the other side. It is an obligation to do, or not to do in favor of the party who
makes the contract, such as the maker or endorser. (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145498, 17
January 2005.)
c. The fact that the object of the contract was not of good quality is irrelevant in the prosecution of
a case involving B.P.22, for the said law was enacted to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. It is not the non-payment of an
obligation which the law punishes, but the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored
upon presentment for payment.
d. In De Villa v. CA, decided April 18, 1991, it was held that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, there is no
distinction as to the kind of check issued. As long as it is delivered within Philippine territory, the
Philippine courts have jurisdiction.
e. In People v. Nitafan, it was held that as long as instrument is a check under the negotiable
instrument law, it is covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

N otes on Ba nking a nd Other Rela ted La ws by RM Ramirez Page 1

 B.P. 22 Bouncing Checks Law RFBT
2. Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment.
a. The maker’s knowledge is presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds. This
element involves the state of mind which is difficult to establish, thus the law creates a prima facie
presumption of such knowledge.
b. Requisites for the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds: ( Sec. 2 BP22)
i. The check is presented to the bank within ninety (90) days from the date of the check
ii. The drawer or maker receives notice that such check has not been paid by the bank
• A written notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is
indispensable. The notice may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank.
A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of a
written notice is fatal for the prosecution. ( Domagsang v. CA, G.R. No. 139292,
December 5, 2000.)
• The Court has in truth repeatedly held that the mere presentation of registry
return receipts that cover registered mail was not sufficient to establish that
written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on issuers of checks. The
authentication by affidavit of the mailers was necessary in order for service by
registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of notices of dishonor
and to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense. (Resterio v.
People, G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012)
iii. The drawer or maker fails to pay the holder of the check in the amount due thereon, or
make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice
that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

3. Subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
a. 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: Provided, 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. ( Sec. 3 BP22)
b. In all prosecutions under this Act, 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. ( Sec. 3 BP22)
c. 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. ( Sec. 3 BP22)

Credit Construed ( Sec. 4, B.P. 22)

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

Liability under the Revised Penal Code. (Sec. 5, B.P. 22)

Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised
Penal Code.
• Prosecution for estafa does not preclude that for B.P.22. There is no double jeopardy since B.P. 22
is a crime against public interest. Even if there is no deceit, mere dishonor of the check already
creates public disturbance and prejudice to the banking system.

N otes on Ba nking a nd Other Rela ted La ws by RM Ramirez Page 2

 B.P. 22 Bouncing Checks Law RFBT
• Considering the volume of checks issued daily, serious disturbance in the banking system is caused.
The fraud is against the public.
• In BP 22, one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation or that there
was damage. The damage done is to the banking system.

Other Notes
Distinction between BP22 and Estafa
BP 22 ( Bouncing Checks Law) Estafa
The check is issued concurrently and reciprocally in
Even though the check was issued in payment of pre-
payment of the exchange consideration. It must not be
existing obligation, liability is incurred.
for a pre-existing obligation.
Damage to the offended and deceit of offender are
Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability
essential elements
Crime against public interest for the act is penalized
due to the disastrous effect to the stability of the It is a crime against property
banking system and prejudice to the economy.
Only the drawer is liable and if the drawer was a Not only the drawer but even the indorser may incur
juridical entity, the officer thereof who signed the liability if he were aware at the time of the indorsement
check shall be liable. The indorser is not liable. of the insufficiency of funds.
Drawer is given five (5) banking days from notice of
Drawer is given three (3) calendar days after notice of
dishonor to make good the check to avoid criminal
dishonor to make good the cash value to avoid liability
liability
This is a malum prohibitum Malum in Se

Exercises ( BP 22)
1. A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B's financial problems. On his way, one of A's car
tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, he asked B to lend him (A) money to buy a new spare
tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a
replenishment of his account soon, B issued A a postdated check with which A negotiated for a new tire.
When presented, the check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal case against A and
B. What would be the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused? Explain.

2. E issued checks to accommodate and to guarantee the obligations of B in favour of another creditor. When
the checks issued by E were presented for payment, the same was dishonored for the reason “Account
Closed”. She was then convicted of three counts of violation of B.P. 22. On appeal, she contended that the
prosecution failed to prove that she received any notice of dishonor of the subject checks from the drawee
bank. Thus, according to her, in the absence of such notice, her conviction under B.P. 22 was not warranted
for there was no bad faith or fraudulent intent that may be inferred on her part. May E be held liable for
violation of B.P. 22 even in the absence of notice of dishonor?

3. Bombay is a money lender. Pinoy is a businessman who has been borrowing money from Bombay by
rediscounting his personal checks to pay his loans. In March 2019, he borrowed P100,000 from Bombay and
issued to her a check for the same amount. The check was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been
drawn against a closed account. When Pinoy was notified of the dishonor of his check he promised to raise
the amount within five days. He failed. Consequently, Bombay sued Pinoy for violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law (BP. Blg. 22). The defense of Pinoy was that he gave the check to Jane to serve as a
memorandum of his indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be encashed. Is the defense of Pinoy
valid? Discuss fully.

N otes on Ba nking a nd Other Rela ted La ws by RM Ramirez Page 3

 B.P. 22 Bouncing Checks Law RFBT
4. A, a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A issued a postdated check to
be presented for payment 30 days after the transaction. Two days before the maturity date of the check, A
called up B and told him not to deposit the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A had not
deposited in the drawee bank the amount needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B deposited the check
in question and the same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the amount with B in
spite of the latter's demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks
Law? Explain.

5. The accused was convicted under B.P, Blg. 22 for having issued several checks which were dishonored by
the drawee bank on their due date because the accused closed her account after the issuance of checks.
On appeal, she argued that she could not be convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason of the closing of her
account because said law applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that
at the time she issued the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank. While she admits that
she may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code, she cannot however be found
guilty of having violated B.P. Blg. 22. Is her contention correct? Explain

N otes on Ba nking a nd Other Rela ted La ws by RM Ramirez Page 4