Batasang Pambansa Blg. No.

22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

Special Notetaking (By: Garri Atayde)

SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. Any person who makes or draw s
an d 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, shall be punished
by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (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 same penalty shall be imposed upon 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.

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
under this Act.

1. HOW VIOLATED; 2 WAYS.

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 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.

GRAVAMEN OF BP 22.
The first way of violating BP No. 22 dwells on the deliberate presentment of a
worthless check that is, the criminal liability arises when the accused proceeds to issuing
a check with the full knowledge that the same does not have sufficient funds or credit with
the drawee bank the bank where the said check is sourced. The gravamen of BP 22,
therefore, is the issuance of a check, not the nonpayment of an obligation. The law has
made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum.
This law, being in that nature, condemns good faith or lack of criminal intent as a
valid defense. And it is for this reason that this special law avails of statutory safeguards.
First, the offense cannot be consummated if, for any reason, there was no subsequent
dishonoring of the check by the drawee bank for the same reason as provided for under
Section 1. The dishonoring of the check, insofar as incurring criminal liability is concerned,
is the point where the statutory transgression under BP No. 22 takes place. The condition
precedent as set forth by this law is very important because logic dictates that only the
drawee bank can affirm that the check is forsooth worthless, not the offended party or the
creditor, as applied in various cases. Moreover, another safeguard is that the drawee bank
shall notify the issuer or the drawer of the check that the same entails insufficient credit
and compel such drawer to replenish the account within five (5) days from the time of
notification. This will then enable the drawer to correct any possible cases of errors or
mistake of account. Having attained these conditions, it now purports the commencement
of any pertinent criminal action.

ELEMENTS UNDER FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1:

1. That a person makes or draws and issues ANY check.
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.
3. That 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.
4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason (insufficiency of
funds or credit) had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank
to stop payment.

The check may be made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.

First and foremost, it must be remembered that BP 22 does not make a distinction
as to whether the bad check is issued in payment of an obligation or to merely guarantee
an obligation (Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160).

It should be noted that BP Blg. 22 punishes the making or drawing and issuing of
any check that is subsequently dishonored, even in payment of pre-existing obligation, as
indicated in Section 1 thereof by the phrase "to apply on account."

Section 1 also punishes the making or drawing and issuing of a check that is
subsequently dishonored, in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the
issuance of the check, as indicated by the words "for value."

In the latter case, is the person who made or drew and issued the check liable for
estafa under the Revised Penal Code and also under BP Blg. 22?

To answer this question, it would be of sheer enlightenment to ask for the view of
the legislators behind this law. As such, Assemblyman Estelito Mendoza, who authored BP
Blg. 22, expressed the view that "if he issues a check in payment (of) or
contemporaneously with incurring an obligation, then he will be liable not only for estafa
but also for violation of this Act." Thus, it bears noting that the law intends to punish its
transgressor simultaneously with the pertinent provisions under the Revised Penal Code,
as to Estafa. His reason is that "(t)he Supreme Court in several cases has decided that
where there is a variance between the elements of an offense in one law and another law,
there will be no double jeopardy." No double jeopardy arises when the elements between
the first and second offense are not the same. Stated differently, there is no double
jeopardy when the second offense is not necessarily included in the first. He cited the
element of damage in estafa, which is not required in BP Big. 22. In view of the purpose of
 the enactment of BP Big. 22, the crime denned and penalized there is against public
interest, while the crime of estafa is against property. Deceit is an element of estafa. This
is not required under BP Big. 22. Taken together, the table below shows the salient
differences between Estafa under RPC and BP 22 as a special penal law.
Comparative Analysis on the Elements of Estafa under the Revised Penal
Code and Issuance of Bum Check under BP No. 22
Element/Classification Estafa BP 22
Damage, as element REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED
Classification CRIME AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
PROPERTY
Deceit, as an element REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED
Nature of the MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
Crime/Offense
Nomenclature REVISED PENAL CODE SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
From this, it is therefore conclusive that simultaneous criminal liabilities under
Estafa and BP 22 are not constitutive of affront to the fundamental law proscribing double
jeopardy.

"Knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank."

BP Blg. 22 requires that the person who made or drew and issued the check knew at
the time of issue that he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.

If he had sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time he issued
the check, but later he withdrew all his funds from or lost credit with the
drawee bank, is he liable if the check is subsequently dishonored?

This deserves a qualification. Under the first paragraph of Section 1, he is not

liable, because at the time he issued the check, he knew that he had sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank. Note the phrase "knowing at the time of
issue."

But he may be liable under the second paragraph of Section 1, if he fails to

keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check.

What is the effect of ordering the bank to stop payment of the check without
any valid reason upon the liability of the drawer or maker who issued the check?
If the drawer or maker had in fact no sufficient funds or credit, and the check would have
been dishonored for that reason had not the drawer or maker ordered the bank to stop
payment, he is liable.

It is no defense then that the drawer of the check ordered the bank to stop payment, if he
had no sufficient funds or credit and the check would have been dishonored had he not
made the order. The law regards the order of stopping payment as pretext on the part of
the drawer to avoid criminal liability.
 In other words, noting that the law partakes the nature of mala prohibita, the fact
that the drawer of the check ordered the bank to stop payment does not render the
drawer absolved from incurring any criminal liability; provided that that he had no
sufficient funds or credit and that the said check would have been still dishonored should
he did not proceed to making such order. Mere issuance of a worthless check already
falls within the province of the statute. In that sense, it is but logical to infer that
since the accused already issued the bum check knowing that the latter had insufficient
funds or credit at the time of its issuance, the fact that he, at the verge of consummating
the offense, ordered the cessation of payment is of no moment, as it is only gleaned as a
pretext for him to escape from criminal responsibility. In addition, the order to the bank to
stop payment of the check must be unsubstantiated that is, it must come without any
valid reason. It is therefore incumbent upon the accused to prove that he had a valid
reason to issue the order stopping the payment.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE SHOWING A VALID REASON TO ORDER THE BANK TO STOP

PAYMENT: There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check: the drawer
ordered the bank to stop payment; and it appeared that the drawer knew at the time the
check was issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. In this case, the drawer is
not liable, even if the check would have been dishonored for insufficiency of
funds had he not ordered the bank to stop payment, because there was a valid reason
(wrong payee) for ordering the bank to stop payment.

To say that the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment is no defense, as it is
enough that the check would have been dishonored had he not ordered the
drawee bank to stop payment.
It is no defense either that the check was not actually dishonored, for the fourth element
mentions two alternatives, namely: (1) that the check is subsequently dishonored, or (2)
that it would have been dishonored had not the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment.

Hence, the possibility that the check would have been dishonored by the drawee bank
for insufficiency of funds or credit had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment is sufficient. The keywords here are valid reason. To
establish the validity of the reason behind the order stopping payment is a matter of
defense which must be proven by the accused.

Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check, by failing 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.

ELEMENTS UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1:

1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he
makes or draws and issues a check.
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date
appearing thereon.
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
 SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 PROVIDES THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY ENSUES
SO LONG AS THE DRAWER FAILS TO KEEP SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE DRAWEE
BANK OR TO MAINTAIN A CREDIT TO COVER THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE CHECK.

As regards the offense defined in the second paragraph of Section 1, it is no defense

that when he made or drew and issued the check, the drawer had sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank. What the second paragraph of Section 1 punishes is
the failure of the drawer to keep sufficient funds in the drawee bank or to maintain
a credit to cover the full amount of the check.

Suppose that the drawer had kept sufficient funds in the drawee bank for 100 days
from the date appearing thereon to cover the check he had issued. The next day he
withdrew all the funds. When the check was presented later on that day to the
drawee bank, it was dishonored. Is the drawer liable?
No. The check was not presented within a period of 90 days from the
date appearing thereon.

THE 90-DAY RULE. The 90-day rule means that the drawer of the check
must be able to maintain sufficient funds or credit within ninety (90) days
from the date appearing thereon. In other words, the holder of the check and
the issuer of the same have the respective obligation to present the check
within that period and to see to it that the check carry with it sufficient funds
within that period. In that case, if the drawer was still able to keep sufficient
funds in the drawee bank anytime beyond that 90-day period and the holder
of the check (payee) likewise presented the check within that period, the
drawer will no longer incur any criminal liability even if it be subsequently
determined that the check entails insufficient funds. And on the part of the
holder (payee), the payee shall lose any legal cause against the drawee for
he has failed to avail of his right.

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
under this Act.

CORPORATE LIABILITY. BP Blg. 22 specifies the person or persons liable when 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 under the Act.

Policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of penalties for violation
of B.P. Blg. 22

1. LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF DISHONOR IS FATAL. While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. 22

does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with
Section 3 of the law, i.e., 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 . A
mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction
under the law. (Domagsang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, Dec. 5, 2000)
2. NO DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS WHEN
THERE IS NO RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR. The absence of proof that drawer received
any notice informing her of the fact that her checks were dishonored and giving her five working
days within which to make arrangements of payment of the said checks prevents the application
of the disputable presumption that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds. Absent
such presumption, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the drawer had knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds when the drawer issued the checks; otherwise, the drawer cannot be
held liable under the law. (Caras vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129900, Oct. 2, 2001)

3. NOTICE OF DISHONOR TO CORPORATION IS NOT NOTICE TO OFFICER WHO ISSUED

THE CHECK. If the drawer or maker is an officer of the corporation, the notice of dishonor to the
said corporation is not notice to the employee or officer who drew or issued the check for and in
its behalf. (Marigumen vs. People, G.R. No. 153451, May 26, 2005) Responsibility under B.P.
Big. 22 is personal to the accused; hence, personal knowledge of the notice of
dishonor is necessary. Consequently, constructive notice to the corporation is not
enough to satisfy due process. (Lao vs. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 572 [1997]) Stated
differently, this is consistent with my customized concept of corporate liability under BP No. 22
as such, it must be noted that when the check was issued on behalf of a corporation, pursuant to
any transaction concomitant with such issuance, it shall be the issuing officer or agent of the
corporation who shall be criminally responsible should there be any positive transgression of this
law. This is precisely because criminal responsibility under BP 22 is deemed personal to the
accused and so the statutory need for personal acknowledgment of notice of dishonor arises.
Acknowledging the dishonor on behalf of the entire corporation will never suffice conviction.
Neither will constructive notice entail substantial compliance pursuant to the fundamental rule
on due process.

SEC. 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.

2. PRESUMPTION OF DRAWER'S KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS. It will be noted

that BP Blg. 22 requires that the person who makes or draws and issues a check must have
knowledge at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank.

Section 2 establishes prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or

credit. 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, is prima facie evidence of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit, when the check is presented within 90 days
from the date of the check.

In People vs. Laggui, supra, it was held that the maker's knowledge of the insufficiency of
his funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of his check for insufficiency of funds.
3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRESUMPTION.

a. When the check is presented after 90 days from the date of the check.
b. When the 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.

The presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit does not lie when the
check is presented after 90 days from the date of the check, because Section 2, which
establishes the presumption, requires that the check be presented within ninety (90) days from
the date of the check.

The element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit is not present and, therefore,
the crime does not exist, when the drawer either

1. Pays the holder of the check the amount due thereon within five (5) banking
days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee; or
2. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within
five (5) banking days after notice of non-payment.

4. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ARISE WHERE NOTICE OF NON-PAYMENT IS NOT
SENT TO THE MAKER OR DRAWER OF THE CHECK. If notice of non-payment by the drawee
bank is not sent to the maker or drawer of the bum check, or if there is no proof as to when such
notice was received by the drawer, then the presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in
Section 2 of B.P. Big. 22 cannot arise, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the
crucial 5-day period. (Danao vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 122353, June 6, 2001)
Correlating this to the statutory safeguards as explained in the first pages, it
appears that this jurisprudence primarily signifies the statutory necessity for the drawee
bank to notify the drawer or issuer of the check at the precise moment where the same
was determined to have insufficient funds or credit. This in turn would require the said
drawer to replenish the account within five (5) days, being the reckoning period, within
which to fill the deficiency. Taken together, it must be underscored that it is essential for
the drawee bank to notify the drawer of the insufficiency of funds or credit so much so that
there could be a statutory basis for the application of the 5-day period. If it be otherwise,
the prima facie evidence shall not arise which may consequently result in acquittal.

SEC. 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. 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. In all prosecution s 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.

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.

5. DUTY OF DRAWEE TO PRESENT HIS REASON FOR DISHONOR OR REFUSAL TO PAY.

Section 3 requires the drawee, who refuses to pay the check to the holder thereof, to cause to be
written, printed or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for his
dishonor or refusal to pay the same.

6. EXPLICIT NOTIFICATION REQUIRED ON THE PART OF THE DRAWEE BANK. Where there
are no sufficient funds in or credit with it, the drawee bank shall explicitly state that fact in the
notice of dishonor or refusal.
Alternately, if the drawee bank received an order beforehand to stop payment from the
drawer, the drawee bank shall state in the notice (of dishonor) that there were NO sufficient
funds in or credit with in for the payment in full of the check, if such be the fact. This is
congruent with the fourth element as set forth under first paragraph of section one which clearly
states that BP No. 22 is violated even when the check would have been dishonored, had he not
ordered the drawee bank to stop the payment.

7. INTRODUCTION OF ANY UNPAID OR DISHONORED CHECK COMPLEMENTED BY THE

DRAWEES REFUSAL TO PAY. In all prosecutions under BP Blg. 22, the introduction in evidence
of any unpaid and dishonored check with the drawee's (the one who executed the check) refusal
to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached thereto, shall be prima facie evidence of

a. The making or issuance of the check;

b. The due presentment (notified the drawee, but failed to settle the payment despite
notification or even in fact dishonored) to the drawee for payment and the dishonor
thereof; and
c. The fact that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or
attached by the drawee on such dishonored check.

The prosecution has to present in evidence only the unpaid and dishonored check
with the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached thereto. It
would not be necessary to prove the making or issuance of the check by the drawer; the due
presentment of the check to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof; and the fact
that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the
drawee on the dishonored check.

In other words, what the prosecution only needs to present is the unpaid and
dishonored check coupled with the drawees refusal to pay, stamped or written thereon or
attached thereto. The reason is obvious. Mere presentation of the check and such refusal by
the drawee readily creates a prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of the check,
that there was due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof, and
that it was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on
such dishonored check. Thus, the prosecution need not prove the latter three anymore.
 Following the presentation, the burden of proof now shifts on the part of the accused to prove
that he had a valid reason, for instance, to stop the payment or to overthrow the presumption
that he issued the check with full knowledge of the fact that the same has insufficient funds
or credit or to show before the Court that he made arrangements for the payment in full of
the amount in check or provided for a remedy to just settle the payment before the holder.

SEC. 4. Credit construed. The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an
arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.

SEC. 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. Prosecution under this Act shall be without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revise d Penal Code.

8. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Issuing a check in payment of an obligation, which is subsequently

dishonored, may be punished under the Revised Penal Code and under BP Big. 22. Such act of
issuing a check without or with insufficient funds in the bank may be punished under both laws.
There is no double jeopardy if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which
the other does not. Hence, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the
defendant from prosecution or conviction under the other. (U.S. vs. Capurro, et al, 7 Phil. 24)

In estafa under Article 315 No. 2(d), Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 4885, the act constituting the offense is postdating or issuing a check in payment
of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.

MERE FACT OF INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS IS ENOUGH TO INCUR CRIMINAL

LIABILITY FOR ESTAFA. The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or no funds in the
bank to cover the amount of the check at the time he postdated or issued it, is sufficient
to make him liable for estafa.

DECEIT AS AN ELEMENT OF ESTAFA. Deceit is an element of estafa and may be

presumed from the failure of the drawer to deposit the amount necessary to cover the
check within three (3) days from receipt of notice of dishonor for lack or insufficiency of
funds in the bank. Deceit is not required in BP Big. 22.

DAMAGE IS REQUIRED IN ESTAFA, BUT NOT WITH BP 22. There must be damage in
estafa, the same being the basis of the penalty. The penalty for the commission of any of
the acts penalized in Section 1 of BP Blg. 22 is fixed without regard to the amount of the
damage if any is caused. The fine is based on the amount of the check, not on the damage
caused. Hence, damage is not an element of the offenses defined in BP Big. 22.

In other words, while under BP Big. 22 deceit and damage are immaterial; the
Revised Penal Code requires the additional facts of deceit and damage to convict the
defendant of estafa.

May the drawer who was acquitted or convicted under the Revised Penal Code for
estafa be prosecuted under B.P. Big. 22?
 Yes. While B.P. Blg. 22 requires the drawer's knowledge of lack or
insufficiency of funds in the drawee bank at the time of issuance of the check,
the Revised Penal Code does not require such knowledge. Hence, the acquittal or
conviction of the drawer under the Revised Penal Code is not a bar to his
prosecution or conviction under B.P. Blg. 22, because the latter law requires the
additional fact of the drawer's knowledge of lack or insufficiency of funds (U.S.
vs. Capurro, et al., supra). In other words, BP No 22 and Estafa under RPC are two different
offenses; they are not arising from the same element.

SEC. 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision of this Act be declared

unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall continue to be in force.

SEC. 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in
the Official Gazette.