For presumption to apply, the ff.

requisites must be met:

1. check is presented w/in 90 days from date of the check
2. drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has
not been paid by the drawee; and
3. drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check
amount due thereon, or to make arrangements for its payment in 5
working days after receiving written notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee.
*notice of non-
payment must be
given for
presumption to
apply since lack of
which prevents the
determination of the
crucial 5-day period.
BP 22: 11
th
week

BP 22: An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a check without sufficient funds or
credit and for other purposes.

Section. 1 Checks without sufficient funds
Acts Penalized:
Making, drawing or issuing of any check that would apply on account or for value, knowing
that at the time of issue, he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
for the payment of such check in full upon presentment
o That check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or
o Would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank a stop payment
(having sufficient funds to cover full amount of check at the time of the making, drawing or
issuance of check) but failed to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover full
amount of check at time of presentment within a period of 90 days from date of appearing
thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by drawee bank.

Punishment: (at the discretion of the court)
Imprisonment for not less than 30 days but not more than 1 yr or
By a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall not
exceed 200K or
Both fine and imprisonment

Section. 2 Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds
Dishonor of drawee bank is to be a prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of
funds or credit
Unless
o 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 5 banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.










Section. 3 Duty of drawee; rules of evidence
When refusing to pay the holder upon presentment, it should have the refusal be written,
printed, or stamped in plain language thereon or attached thereto, the reason for drawees
dishonor or refusal to pay the same.
Provided:
o Where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall
always be 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 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.

Section 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.
Section 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 Revised Penal Code.
Section 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision of this Act be declared unconstitutional, the
remaining provisions shall continue to be in force.
Section 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette.
Approved: April 3, 1979.

Took effect: June 29, 1979 (15 days after its publication on June 14, 1979)

Notes:

Where check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity person or persons who actually
signed the check in behalf of such drawer is/are liable under BP 22.
Deceit is not an essential element of the offense
Malice or criminal intent is immaterial.
Every element of the crime is still to be proven before TC to warrant a conviction for violation
thereof.
Elements:
a. The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value;
b. 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 such check in full upon its
presentment; and
c. 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.
Checks covered: covers all kinds of checks drawned against banks and issued in the Philippines.
Mere act of issuing a worthless check whether as a deposit, as a guarantee, or an accommodation,
or even as an evidence of a pre-existing debt, is a malum prohibitum.
Includes within its coverage:
o Making and issuing of a check by one who has no account with a bank or
o Where such account was already closed when the check was presented for payment.
Under the law, foreign checks, provided they were drawn and issued in the Philippines though
payable outside thereof, are within the coverage of the law.
Aim of the act: to put a stop to or curb the practice of issuing checks that are worthless.
o What the law punishes is the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation.
Presumption cannot hold if there is evidence to the contrary.
Yolanda (Payee) - Engaged
in jewelry business.

Recuerdo (Drawer ) - dentist

Prudential Bank - Drawer
bank

Liberty Savings and Loan
Association - Drawee Bank

11
th
week cases:

1. Lozano v. Martinez

Facts: Petitioners are contesting that BP 22 is consummated only upon the dishonor or non-
payment of the check when it is presented to the drawee bank and that the statute is really a bad
debt than a bad check law. And that what it punishes is the non-payment of the check, not the
act of issuing it.

There are 2 constitutional provisions being raised to have been impaired:
a. Constitutional provision on imprisoning a person for debt
b. Constitutional provision on freedom to contract.
Other concerns against BP22
c. Constitutes as an undue or improper delegation of legislative power, on the theory that the
offense is not completed by the sole act of the maker or drawer but is made to depend on the
will of the payee. (logic of argument stretches to absurdity).
d. Sec. 9(2) of Art. VII of the 1973 Constitution was violated.--> prohibits the introduction of
amendments to a bill during the 3
rd
rdg. theres no merit in this claim.

Issue: WON is BP 22 a valid law?

Held: YES. Enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public
policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed a public nuisance to be abated
by the imposition of penal sanctions. It is a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant
to the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

Checks are deemed as convenient substitutes for currency in commercial and financial
transactions. The basis or foundation of such perception is confidence. If such confidence is
shaken, the usefulness of checks as currency substitutes would be greatly diminished or may
become nil. Any practice therefore tending to destroy that confidence should be deterred, for the
proliferation of worthless checks can only create havoc in trade circles and the banking
community.

Checks cannot be categorized as mere contracts. It is a commercial instrument that has become
a convenient substitute for money. It forms part of the banking system and therefore not entirely
free from the regulatory power of the state.

2. Recuerdo v. People

Facts:
Yolanda sold a 3-Karat loose diamond stone valued at P420K to
petitioner.
Petitioner gave downpayment of 40K. In settlement of the balance,
petitioner issued 9 postdated checks: 8 of which in the amount of
P40K; 1 in the amt. of P20K. All drawn against account at Prudential
Bank.
When Yolanda deposited 8 out of 10 checks to her depository bank
(LS), only of the 3 checks were cleared. The 5 were dishonored due
to the closure of petitioners account.
She went to petitioners dental clinic and advised her to change the
dishonored checks to cash. this was disregarded.
A demand letter was sent to petitioner but she failed to heed the
same. led to filing of 5 information.
MeTC convicted petitioner. RTC and CA affirms the decision.

Issue: WON petitioner was validly convicted under BP 22?

Held: YES. The terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the check is irrelevant.

Yolandas testimony that when she deposited the checks to her depository bank they were
dishonored due to "Account Closed" thus sufficed. In fact, even petitioners counsel during trial
admitted the dishonor, and on that ground.

"A check issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended for encashment, has the
same effect like any other check. It is within the contemplation of B.P. 22, which is explicit
that "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 x x x which check is subsequently dishonored x x x shall be punished by
imprisonment." (Emphasis supplied.)
"BP 22 does not appear to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by
the parties, its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial
value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is a policy that can be easily
eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate application of the legislative enactment
can be made."

(Emphasis supplied)


The contention that BP22 is a bill of attainder (one which inflicts punishment w/o trial) fails. Under
BP 22, every element of the crime is still to be proven before the trial court to warrant a conviction
for violation thereof.

3. People v. Nitafan
Facts: Respondent Lim was charged before the court with violation of BP 22. That accused make
or draw and issue a check to Sasaki a Trust Company Check dated Feb. 9, 1985 in amount of
P143K knowing that at the time of issue, he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank. That such check was dishonored by drawee bank for insufficiency of funds and
despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, accused failed to pay Sasaki amount of said check or
to make arrangement for full payment of the same within 5 banking days after receiving said
notice.

July 1986 Lim moved to quash information on ground that what he issued was a memorandum
check which was in the nature of a promissory note, thus civil in nature.

Issue: WON a memorandum check is within the ambit of BP 22?

Held: YES. A memorandum check, upon presentment, is generally accepted by the bank. 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 is partial fulfillment of a pre-existing obligation, for what the
law punishes is the issuance itself of a bouncing check
15
and not the purpose for which it was
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.

A memorandum check comes within the meaning of Sec. 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law
which defines a check as "a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand." A check is
also defined as " [a] written order or request to a bank or persons carrying on the business of
banking, by a party having money in their hands, desiring them to pay, on presentment, to a
person therein named or bearer, or to such person or order, a named sum of money

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. 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 the third person, will be valid in his hands like any
other check.

4. People v. Chua

5. People v. Cugayan

6. Cueme v. People

7. Wong v. CA

8. Nagrampa v. People

9. Ting v. CA

10. Danao v. CA

11. Domagasan v. CA

12. Rico v. People

13. Yu Oh v. CA

14. Tadeo v. People

15. Llamado v. CA

16. Vaca v. CA

17. Lim v. People

18. Tan v. Mendez

19. Svendsen v. People

20. Wilkie v. Limos

21. Mitra v. People

22. Heirs of Simon v. Chan