Batas Pambansa

Bilang 22
Anti-Bouncing Checks Law
 What is the Rationale for the Law?

O B.P. 22 was enacted to prevent the proliferation of worthless

checks in the mainstream of daily business and to avert not only
the undermining of the banking system but also the infliction of
damage and injury upon trade and commerce occasioned by the
indiscriminate issuance of such checks.
O By it nature, the offenses defined under B.P. 22 are against public
interest.
 What acts are penalized under the Law?

O Drawing a Check Without Sufficient Funds (Sec .1)

1. A person makes or draws and issues any check;
2. The check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account
or for value;
3. The person who makes or draws and issues the 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 upon its presentment; and
4. 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
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment
 What acts are penalized under the Law?

O Failing to Keep Funds Sufficient to Cover a

Check issued (Sec .1, par 2.)
1. A person has sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank when he makes or draws and
issues a check;
2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or maintain a
credit to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within 90 days from the date
appearing; and
3. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
What are the essential elements to be liable
for violation of B.P. 22?

To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential

elements must be present:
1. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply
for account or for value;
2. The 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; and
3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for
the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
 Who is liable for violating the bouncing
checks law?

O Any person who makes, draws or issues a worthless check

is liable.
O This includes an “accommodation party,” or one who
signed the check without receiving value in exchange or
who issues said check for the purpose of lending his name
to some other person. The accommodation party is liable
even though the holder of the check knew him to be a mere
accommodation party who did not receive any value
therefor.
O When the check is issued in behalf of the corporation or
other legal entity, the person whose signature appears on
the check is liable.
When is the drawer of the check presumed
to know there is insufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank?
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.
What should the drawee do once the check
bounces? (Sec. 31)
O 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 thereon, or
attached thereto, the written, printed, or stamped in plane language
reason for drawee’s dishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided, That
where there are no insufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank,
such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or
refusal. 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 therefor 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.
O 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.
 Is a notice of dishonor an indispensable
requirement in a prosecution for violation of
B.P. 22?
O A notice of dishonor is not indispensable as it is not an element of the offense.
However, evidence that a notice of dishonor has been sent to and received by
the accused is actually sought as a means to prove the second element, such
that the absence of sufficient proof of receipt thereof can be fatal in the
prosecution’s case. (Jesusa T. Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 163494, August 3,
2016)

O Based on Section 2 of B.P. 22, the presumption that the issuer had knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only after it is proved that
the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from
receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence as
provided in this section cannot arise, if such notice of non-payment by the
drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to
when such notice was received by the drawer, since there would simply be no
way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period. (Yu Oh v. CA, 451 Phil. 380 (2003)
 Is a notice of dishonor an indispensable
requirement in a prosecution for violation of
B.P. 22?
O This requirement cannot be taken lightly because Section 2
provides for an opportunity for the drawer to effect full
payment of the amount appearing on the check, within five
banking days from notice of dishonor.
O The absence of said notice therefore deprives an accused
of an opportunity to preclude criminal prosecution. In other
words, procedural due process demands that a notice of
dishonor be actually served on petitioner. (Yu Oh v. CA, 451
Phil. 380 (2003)
How should a notice of dishonor be served
on the drawer?

O This may be done personally or by mail.

O However, note that when the notice of dishonor is served by

mail, it is not enough to simply present the letter with a
registry receipt or return card as evidence that a notice of
dishonor has been served.
What evidence is needed to prove receipt of
notice of dishonor?
O It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent
to the petitioner. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to show “that the
drawer of the check received the said notice because the fact of service
provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by
the drawee of the check.” (Alferez v. People, et al., 656 Phil. 116 (2011)

O Registry return cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of

letters sent through registered mail. Mere presentation of a copy of the demand
letter, together with the registry receipt and the return card, allegedly sent to
petitioner, when no attempt was made to authenticate or identify the signature
on the registry return card, is not enough. Receipts for registered letters and
return receipts do not by themselves prove receipt; they must be properly
authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letter, claimed to be a notice of
dishonor. To be sure, the presentation of the registry card with an
unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner received such notice. (Alferez v. People, et al.,
656 Phil. 116 (2011)
 If the prosecution failed to authenticate the
signature on the return card but the drawer of the
check nevertheless made efforts to settle the
payment subsequent to the dishonor, is knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds in or credit with the
drawee nevertheless established?

O Yes. In Ma. Rosario P. Campos v. People, et al., G.R. No. 187401,

September 17, 2014, the accused maintained that her personal
receipt of the notice was not sufficiently established, considering
that only a written copy of the letter and the registry return receipt
covering it were presented by the prosecution.
O The Court, however, considers Campos’ defense that she exerted
efforts to reach an amicable settlement with her creditor after the
checks which she issued were dishonored by the drawee bank,
BPI Family Bank. Campos categorically declared in her petition
that, “[she] has in her favor evidence to show that she was in
good faith and indeed made arrangements for the payment of her
obligations subsequently after the dishonor of the checks.”
O Clearly, this statement was a confirmation that she actually
received the required notice of dishonor from FWCC. The evidence
referred to in her statements were receipts dated January 13,
1996, February 29, 1996, April 22, 1998 and May 26, 1998
issued by FWCC to Campos for payments in various amounts
ranging from P2,500.00 to P15,700.00. Campos would not have
entered into the alleged arrangements beginning January 1996
until May 1998 if she had not received a notice of dishonor from
her creditor, and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her
funds with the bank and the dishonor of her checks.
 What is “credit construed” mean?

O The word “credit” as used herein shall be construed to

mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank for
the payment of such check..
When should a complaint for violation of BP
22 be filed?

O The criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 must be filed

within four (4) years from the time the checks have been
dishonored.
What is the penalty for violation of B.P. 22?

O The penalty for violation of B.P. 22 is imprisonment of at least

30 days but not more than one (1) year, or a fine of at least
double the amount of the check but not to exceed PHP
200,000.00.
O However, under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-
2000, the Supreme Court recommended that fines be
imposed instead of a prison sentence for verdicts involving B.P.
22.
O This was later clarified in Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 13-2001 that imprisonment is still possible under
B.P. 22 verdicts and that if the accused is unable to pay the
fine imposed, subsidiary imprisonment may still attach.
 What are the distinctions between B.P. 22
and estafa under the RPC?
BP 22 Estafa (RPC)

1. Even though the check was issued 1. The check should be issued
in payment of pre-existing concurrently and reciprocally in
obligation, liability is incurred payment of the exchange
consideration. The check should
not be for pre-existing obligation
2. Damage or deceit is immaterial to 2. Damage to the offended and
criminal liability deceit of the offender are
essential elements.
3. Crime against public interest since 3. Crime against property
the act is penalized because of
disastrous effect to the stability of
the banking system and prejudice
to the economy
 What are the distinctions between B.P. 22
and estafa under the RPC?
BP 22 Estafa (RPC)

4. Only the drawer is liable and if the 4. Not only the drawer but indorsee
drawee was a juridical entity, its may incur liability if he were aware
officer who signed the check shall at the time of the indorsement of
be liable. The indorser is not the insufficiency of funds.
liable.
5. Drawer is given 5 banking days 5. Drawer is given 3 days after ND to
from ND to make good the cash make good the cash value thereof
value thereof in order to avoid in order to avoid criminal liability
criminal liability
6. This is malum prohibitum 6. This is malum in se.
What are the possible defenses against B.P.
22?

O The check was not issued to apply to an account or for

value but as a guarantee deposit.
O The required ND had not been given.
O The dishonor of the check was not due to insufficiency of
funds
O The check was presented for payment beyond 180 days
from maturity thereof
O Valid cause to stop payment, such the right of installment
buyer under PD 957
O Complainant was informed by issuer beforehand that the
account had been closed.