BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 AMENDMENT OF ART. 315 ENACTED INTO LAW AS RA.
4885:
the act penalizing the making or drawing and issuance
of a cheque without sufficient funds or credit and for
other purposes or is simply known as the BOUNCING
CHEQUES LAW
AIM: Putting a stop to or curbing the practice of issuing
checks that are worthless, i.e. checks that end up being
rejected or dishonored for payment. The practice is
proscribed by the state because of the injury it causes
to the public interest.
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION IN SECTION 23 OF ARTICLE 3
thereof states that no one shall be imprisoned for a
debt – the BP 22 does not violate that provision
because it does not punish the non-payment of an
obligation or the failure to pay, what the BP 22
punishes is the act of issuing a bouncing check or
failing to keep sufficient funds for payment of the
check for 90 days from the date of such check.
− The law punishes the act not as an offense
against property, but an offense against public
order.
MALUM PROHIBITUM - meaning it is punished not
because it is inherently immoral but because other law
makes such acts criminal as such the law does not look
into the intent of the offender anymore and as a
consequence good faith is not a defense
ART. 335 – punished a person who defrauded another
“by false pretending to possess any power, influence,
qualification, property, credit, agency or business, or by
means of similar deceit.”
AMENDMENT TO ART. 335 (1926): penalized any
person who:
1. Issues check in payment of a debt or for other
valuable consideration, knowing at the time of its
issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in
the bank to cover its amount
2. Maliciously signs the check differently from his
authentic signature as registered at the bank in
order that the latter would refuse to honor it
3. Issues a postdated check and, at the date set for its
payment, does not have sufficient deposit to cover
the same
ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE (1932):
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – by using fictitious name
and by postdating a check knowing that at that time he
had no funds in the bank
(d) By postdating a check … 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 three (3) days from receipt of notice from
the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has
been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall
be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent acts.
SECTION 1:
2 WAYS OF VIOLATING BP 22:
a. 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 payment of such
check in full upon its presentment and 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 back to stop
payment
CREDIT (under BP 22) - an arrangement or
understanding with the bank for the payment of the
check
1ST ELEMENT: a person makes or draws and issues any
check
2ND ELEMENT: the check is made or drawn and issued to
apply on account or for value – on account means on
credit
• BB 22 punishes the making or drawing and issuing
of a check that is SUBSEQUENTLY DISHONORED by
the drawee bank even if the check was given in
payment of a pre-existing obligation
• If however the check is issued simultaneously with
the creation of the obligation – meaning I'm
creating the obligation at the same time that I'm
issuing the check or the check is the reason for
incurring or creating of the obligation then that
person may BE LIABLE NOT ONLY FOR BP 22 BUT
ALSO FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON
ESTAFA
• BP 22 does not make a distinction whether the bad
check or the bouncing check is issued in payment of
an obligation or to guarantee an obligation as long
as the check is bad or it bounces
3RD ELEMENT: The person who makes or draws and
issues to check 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 (not
partial) upon its presentment to the bank
− Essential element of the offense is KNOWLEDGE on
the part of the maker or drawer
− To mitigate the harshness of the law: the statute
provides that such presumption shall not arise if
WITHIN 5 BANKING DAYS from receipt of the notice
of dishonor, the maker or drawer makes
arrangement for payment of the check by the bank
or pays the holder the amount of the check
4TH ELEMENT: The check is then subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank (actual dishonor) 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 drawer issued a stop payment order)
STOP PAYMENT ORDER – the drawer instructed the
bank to not pay the check yet; however, this is not a
defense because the law regards the order to stop
payment as a mere pretext or excuse to avoid criminal
liability and that cannot be used as an excuse
− if the person orders the bank to stop payment of
the check WITHOUT VALID REASON, he will be
liable if in fact he had no sufficient funds or credit
with the bank and the check would have been
dishonored for that reason
− if there is a valid reason to stop payment then that
is a valid defense
PENALTY:
1. IMPRISONMENT – not less than 30 days nor more
than 1 year
2. FINE – not to exceed P200,000.00
3. BOTH
b. when any person who has sufficient funds in or
credit with the bank at the time he makes or draws
and issues a check he fails to keep sufficient funds
or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of
the check if the check is presented within a period
of 90 days from the date appearing on the check for
which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank –
the law just requires the person who makes or
draws and issues the check to keep sufficient funds
to pay for the check IN FULL for at least 90 days
but it is better if it is 180 days
1ST ELEMENT: a person has sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawing back at the time that he makes or
draws and issues a check
2ND ELEMENT: he fails to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain credit to COVER THE FULL AMOUNT of the
check if the check is presented within a period of 90
days from the date appearing on the check
3RD ELEMENT: the check is now dishonored by the
drawee bank
− what the second paragraph really punishes is the
failure of the drawer or maker to keep sufficient
funds in the drawee back for 90 days from the date
appearing on the cheque to cover the full amount
which is stated on the cheque
“knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawing bank”
− BP 22 requires that the person who made or drew
and issue the cheque KNEW at the time of issue
that he did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawing back for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment
What if that person had sufficient funds in or credit with
a drawee bank at the time he issued the check but later
he withdrew all his funds from or lost credit with drawee
back, is he liable if the check is subsequently
dishonored?
− Under the first part of paragraph 1 meaning the first
manner of violating BP 22 HE WILL NOT BE LIABLE
because to be liable under the first manner of
violating BP 22 it will require that the person must
have made their drawn and issued the check
knowing at the time of such making drawing or
issuing that he did not have sufficient funds. Here
at the time he made it he knew that he had
sufficient funds in him and in fact he really did have
sufficient funds so he cannot be held liable under
that paragraph.
− But under the second part or the second manner of
violating BP 22 HE MAY BE LIABLE. He may be liable
if he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount within 90 days from
the date of the check so he has to maintain an
amount sufficient in his credit with a bank to cover
the full amount of the check
SECTION 2.
PRESUMPTION OF THE DRAWER’S KNOWLEDGE OF
INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
− Section 2 of BP 22 created a prima facie
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds in or credit with the drawee bank in other
words the making drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with the
bank
− The drawer’s knowledge of insufficiency of funds is
legally presumed from the dishonor of his check
for insufficiency of funds and from the notice
except:
• When the check is presented AFTER 90 DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THE CHECK
− the drawer is not liable because the law
requires that the payee should have
presented the check to the bank within 90
days from the date of the check
• When the maker or drawer place the holder of
the check the amount which is due on the check
within 5 BANKING DAYS AFTER RECEIVING
NOTICE that the check has not been paid by the
drawee bank (he actually pays within 5 days
after he receives notice that the check
dishonored) – this is a complete defense
• when the maker or drawer MAKES
ARRANGEMENTS FOR PAYMENT IN FULL with a
drawee bank of such check within five banking
days after receiving notice that the check has
not been paid by the drawee
− the drawer is not liable because the
element of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds or credit is not present because he
actually makes payment so he’s not liable
for violation of BP 22
180 DAYS – STALE CHECK
If the check is deposited or encash after the 90-day
period but before it becomes stale of before 180 days
or six months – only the presumption of knowledge or
insufficiency of funds is lost but such knowledge
anyway can still be proven by the prosecution by direct
or circumstantial evidence
SECTION 3.
When the dishonor check is introduced in evidence with
a drawee’s refusal stamp or written on the check it will
now serve to be PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of the
following:
1. evidence of the making or issuance of the check
2. the due presentment to the drawee bank for
payment and of the dishonor by the drawee bank
3. the fact that the same was properly dishonored for
the reason which is written stamped or attached by
the drawee on such check
in other words if the prosecution presents the dishonor
check which contains the stamp or written refusal of
the drawee bank to pay then the prosecution does not
have to prove the:
− making or issuance of the check
− the presentment or the dishonor of the check
− the reason anymore for the dishonor because all
those things on the check already serve as prima
facie evidence of those things
NOTICE OF DISHONOR:
− notice of this owner must be given to the drawer –
in order for the presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds to arise the law requires that
the notice of dishonor of the check must be sent to
the drawer
− lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal meaning
that the offender will no longer be held guilty – a
mere oral notice nor a mere oral demand to pay
will not lead to the conviction of that person who
issued the bouncing check it has to be a written
notice which must be personally served upon the
accused
In case the check will be dishonored or if the drawee
bank does not want to pay, the drawee bank has
corresponding DUTIES:
− To cause, to be written, printed or stamped in plain
language the reason for the dishonor or refusal to
pay on the check or attach that reason to the check
− “D.A.I.F.” drawn against insufficient funds -
stamped on checks or can be “account closed”
If the drawee bank received an order to stop payment
from the drawer:
− the bank should still state in the notice that there
were no sufficient funds in or credit with it for the
payment of the check in full if that is the case
− the bank will no longer stamp dishonor but it still or failing to keep sufficient funds for the full payment
has a duty to state the fact of insufficient funds or of the check within 90 days from presentment, so
whatever even if it does not dishonor the check damage is not required
anymore

PURPOSES:

1. To give the accused an opportunity to present

criminal prosecution
− he's GIVEN 5 DAYS TO ACTUALLY PAY OR MAKE
ARRANGEMENTS TO PAY. This is part of the due
process, informing him of his fault giving him an
opportunity to avoid prosecution by actually
paying the amount of the check
2. To create the presumption that the drawer had the
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to cover the
full amount of the check in the bank
− the PROSECUTION MUST ABSOLUTELY PROVE
THAT A NOTICE OF DISHONOR WAS SENT TO THE
DRAWER of the bouncing check and that he had
personally received such notice
− however, the rule varies because in common
practice sometimes the maker or drawer does
not want to personally receive the notice of
dishonor he hides from the person who is filing a
case against him
− that sometime defeats the prosecution for BP 22
so in some instances courts have allowed the
sticking the notice on the gate and taking a
picture because the person doesn’t want to
actually receive it
− the absence of the presumption of knowledge
know that the drawer had knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds it does not mean that the
offender will not be held guilty all it just means is
that now the burden will shift to the prosecution
to prove that the drawer had knowledge of
insufficiency of funds at the time they issued the
check and if they cannot prove it then that is the
only time that the drawer will be liable for
violating BP 22

The court encouraged to impose a penalty of fine only

and not imprisonment if the offense and the offender
clearly indicate:

1. good faith or second clear mistake of fact without

negligence

a person will be liable for both violation of BP 22 and

for violation of the provisions on estafa – because the
elements of both offenses are different ESTAFA
requires the elements of deceit and damage while BP
22 punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check