BOUNCING CHECK LAW Lozano vs.

Martinez
(Batas Pambasa Bilang 22)
G.R. No. L- 63419 December 18, 1986
I. Constitutional Issues Yap, J.:
II. Scope
Facts:
III. Offenses Penalized
IV. Dishonor on other Grounds The constitutionality of BP 22, popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law, which was
V. Defenses approved on April 3, 1979, is the sole issue presented in these consolidated petitions for
VI. Criminal Prosecution decision.
VII. Proof of Damage Not Necessary
VIII. Novation as Defense These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses under the statute. The
IX. Liability of Corporate Officers defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash the information on theground that the
X. Violation of B.P. 22 may be a Ground for Disbarment acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being unconstitutional.
XI. Bouncing Checks Law is a Transitory and Continuing Crime
Issue:
I. Constitutional Issues: Whether or not B.P. 22 is constitutional
Held:
a. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt (Article III, Sec. 20 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution)- The enactment of BP22 is a valid exercise of police power and it is not repugnant to the
constitutional prohibition against imprisonment of debt. The trouble of the offense punished
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) Does not violate the principle against non- by BP22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check that is dishonored upon its
imprisonment for failure to pay contractual obligation but the circulation of a worthless presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes.
check which punishes in the exercise of police power of state to maintain confidence in The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is
checks. to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The law punishes
the act not as an offense against property, but as an offense against public order.

b. Double Jeopardy-

The drawer of worthless check can be prosecuted both for Estafa and for violation of B.P 22. He
will not be placed in double jeopardy, for there is no identity of offenses. While deceit and
damage are necessary requirements of estafa, they are not necessary for violation of B.P 22.
 No identity of offenses of estafa and BP 22 exists for which legal jeopardy in one case may be
invoked. Evidence required proving one offense is not the same evidence required to prove the
Ada vs. Virola
other.
G.R. No. L- 82346-47 April 17, 1987 Nierras vs. Dacuycuy
G.R. No. L-59568-76 January 11, 1990
Fernan,  C.J.:
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
Facts:
Petitioner was initially charged for violations of BP 22 consisting in the issuance of 3 checks
which subsequently bounced. After the prosecution had rested its case and before the Petitioner was charged for violation of BP 22 for having issued bouncing checks. Subsequently,
presentation of evidence by the defense, petitioner again was charged for estafa based on the nine (9) other information for estafa under Article 315 of the revised Penal Code were filed
same act of issuing 3 bouncing checks. against him.
Issue:
Petitioner maintains that his prosecution, first under Section 1 of BP 22 and again, under Article
315 par. 2(d) of the RPC, based on the same act of issuing 3 bouncing checks, violates his Whether or not there is double jeopardy
constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Held:
Issue:
There was no violation of double jeopardy. The rule on double jeopardy prohibits prosecution
Whether or not there was a violation of Ada’s right against double jeopardy for the same offense. Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC and BP. 22 are two different offenses.
Each crime sets out different elements. Deceit and damage are essential elements in estafa
Held: while the same are not required in BP. 22. Under BP 22, the mere issuance of a check that is
dishonored gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued
No violation was committed against Ada in the case at bar. the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2)
sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy. The accused may thus be
Distinction between the two offenses is further found in their nature. Offense under Art. 318 par prosecuted and even convicted for both offenses.
2 (d) of the RPC is a malum in se requiring proof of criminal intent on the part of the offender as
an essential ingredient focusing mainly on the damage caused to the property rights of the
victim. The crime under BP 22 makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum c. Title of Batas Pambasa Bilang 22-
prohibition wherein criminal intent need not be proved because it is presumed and considered a
violation thereof as one committed against public interest. The second paragraph of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the issuance of a
check even if the drawer had sufficient funds or credit at the time of its issuance if he fails to
maintain such funds or credit to pay for the check if it is presented within ninety (90) days
from its date.
 That petitioner willfully and feloniously made or drew and issued to Roberto Lorayez to
The title of Batas Pambasa Blg. 22 (B.P 22) reads follows apply on account or for value a Depositors Trust Company Check No. 3371, payable to
herein complainant in the amount of $2,500.00 equivalent to P50,000.00
“An act Penalizing the Making of Drawing and Issuance of Check Without Sufficient Funds or
Credit and for Other Purposes.” That petitioner, knowing well that at the time of issue he had no sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee-bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment which the check
The title indicates that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 penalizes the issuance of check without when presented to the drawee back within 90 days from the date, was subsequently dishonored
sufficient fund or credit. On the other hand, the second paragraph of Section 1 of Batas for “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”.
Pambansa Blg. 22 punish the issuance of a check with sufficient funds or credit of the drawer
fails to keep sufficient funds or credit if the drawer fails to keep sufficient funds or credit to Despite receipt of notice of such dishonor said petitioner failed to pay the amount of the said
pay for the check if it is presented within ninety (90) days from its date. This is not reflected check or to make arrangement for the full payment of the same within 5 banking days after
in the title of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Thus, Assemblyman Arturo Tolentino opined that the receiving the said notice.
second paragraph of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is unconstitutional. (Record of Petitioner moved to dismiss the information on the following grounds:
Batasan, March 22, 1979, p. 1899)
a. Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
b. That no offense was committed since the check involved was payable
II. Scope: in dollars, hence, the obligation created is null and void pursuant to
RA 529 (an act to assure uniform value of the Philippine Coin and
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P 22) applies to all kinds of check, since the law makes no Currency)
distinction and it was enacted to restore confidence in checks.
Issue:
 The law also applies to check drawee against an account of the drawee abroad if the
check was either drawn or issued or issued in the Philippines. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Makati has jurisdiction over the case.

De Villa vs. CA Held:

G.R. No. 87416 April 08, 1991 The court ruled in affirmative, citing the case of Lim vs Rodrigo, “that jurisdiction or venue is
Paras,  .J.: determined by allegation in the information” The information under the consideration
specifically alleged that the offense was committed in Makati, and therefore, the same is
Facts: controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the failing of a complaint or information in
court which initiates or criminal action.
Petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the RTC of the National Capital Judicial
Region, Makati Branch 145, for violation of BP 22. On the matter of venue for violation of BP 22, in the case of People vs. Yabut laid down the
following guidelines in Memo. Circular 4:
 RTC ruled that BP 22 was unconstitutional and thus ordered to quash the Information.
1. Venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed Hence this petition for review on certiorari filed by the Solicitor General in behalf of the
and delivered; government.
2. The place where the check was written, signed, or dated does not
necessarily fix the place where it was executed, as what is of decisive importance is
the delivery which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. It Issue:
is undisputed that the check in question was executed and delivered by the Whether or not a memorandum check issued postdated in partial payment of a pre-
petitioner to the private respondent at the Makati, Metro Manila. existing obligation is within the coverage of B.P 22

Under the Bouncing Checks Law, foreign checks, provided they are drawn and issued in
the Philippines though payable outside or made payable and dishonored in the Held:
Philippines though drawn and issued outside, are within the coverage of the said law. The constitutionality of the "Bouncing Check Law" has already been sustained by this
The law applies to check drawn against current accounts in foreign currency. Court in Lozano v. Martinez: ““ 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,
It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not without any condition concerning its presentment.
distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Where the law does make any exception,
courts may not, except compelling reasons exist to justify it. A memorandum check comes within the meaning of Sec. 185 of the NIL which defines a check as
"a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. 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
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 likewise applies to memorandum checks.
an ordinary check, and if passed to a third person, will be valid in his hands like any other
check.”
People of the Philippines vs. Nitafan
G.R. No. 75954 October 22, 1992 From the above definition, it is clear that a memorandum check, which is in the form of an
ordinary check, is still drawn on a bank and should therefore be distinguished from a promissory
Bellosillo,  .J.:
note, which is but a mere promise to pay.
Facts:
A memorandum check must therefore fall within the ambit of BP 22 which does not distinguish
but merely provides that "any person who makes or draws and issues any check knowing at the
Private respondent Lim was charged with violation of BP 22. Lim moved to quash the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee-bank . . . which
Information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute a felony as BP 22
check is subsequently dishonored
was unconstitutional and that the check he issued was a memorandum check which was
in the nature of a promissory note.
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 in partial fulfillment of a pre-existing
obligation, for what the law punishes is the issuance itself of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere Que issued a check, which bounced. He alleged that the court has no jurisdiction to try
act of issuing a worthless check, whether as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an evidence of the case because the checks that he issued were deposited outside of Quezon City, the
a pre-existing debt, is malum prohibitum. place of issuance. He also denied liability because, according to him, his purpose in
issuing the said checks was to guarantee only the payment of the purchases made by
BAR QUESTION (2010) Powerhouse Supply, Inc. in which, he is a manager.
A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her
favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that the check would not
be honored because B’s account had just been closed. The two then approached trader C whom The lower court found Que guilty of the crime charged. On appeal to the Court of
they asked to change the check with cash, even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at Appeals, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. The case was elevated to the
P85,000.00 with the assurance that the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s Supreme Court that also denied the motion for Review on Certiorari of the decision of
presentment of the check for payment on due date, it was dishonored because the account had the CA and resolution that affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Quezon City, convicting
already been closed. What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account herein petitioner of the crime of violating BP 22 on two (2) counts.
for the loss of her P85,000.00? Issue:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Whether or not B.P 22 covers the act of merely issuing a check to guarantee payment
A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B who drew the postdated check Held:
against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and with knowledge at the time he issued the
check that the account thereof is already closed. A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he It is now settled that BP 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued
was a mere endorser of B‟s check to C who exchanged the check in cash. BP 22 does not apply merely in the form of a deposit or guarantee. The history of the enactment of subject
to endorser of checks. Hence only a civil action may be filed by C against A to recover the statute evinces the definite legislative intent to make the prohibition all-embracing,
P85,000.00. Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of a without making any exception from the operation thereof in favor of a guarantee. BB 22
worthless check, under the given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a credit was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks, to prevent checks from
transaction for a pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a becoming useless “scraps of paper”, and to restore respectability to checks, all without
check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt. distinctions to the purpose of the issuance of the checks.

 The law applies to checks issued to guarantee the payment of an obligation  It applies to a check issued as collateral for a loan. This holds true even if the drawer
issued the check as guarantee for the accounts of third parties.
Que vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 75217-18 September 21, 1987 Caridad vs. People of the Philippines
Paras,  .J.: G.R. No. 90630 September 10, 1990
Paras,  .J.:
Facts:
 {Magno vs. CA, 210 SCRA 471 [ 1992])
 This holds true even if the drawer issued the check as guarantee for the accounts of
third parties (People vs. Macatangay, 1 SCRA 237). Magno vs. CA
G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992
People vs. Macatangay
Paras,  .J.:
People v. Macatangay, 107 Phil. 188
Facts:
G.R. No. 75217-18 September 21, 1987
Paras,  .J.: Petitioner Magno was in the process of putting up a car repair shop sometime in April
1983, but he did not have the complete equipment that could make his venture
workable and he lacked the funds with which to purchase the necessary equipment to
 The application of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 extends to crossed checks (memorandum
make such business operational. Petitioner approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of
circular No. 4)
Mancor Industries, for his needed car repair service equipment of which Mancor was a
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 to undated checks. Under section 6 of the negotiable distributor. Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation advising
Instrument law, the validity of a negotiable instrument Law, the validity of a negotiable its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing and able to supply the pieces of
instrument is not affected by the fact it is undated. (Dela Cruz vs. People, G.R. No.86806, equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate the petitioner and provide him
July 19, 1989) credit facilities. He arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up
a warranty deposit equivalent to thirty per centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces
of the equipment to be purchased amounting to P29,790.00. Since petitioner could not
Dela Cruz vs. People come up with such amount, he requested Joey Gomez, on a personal level, to look for a
third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit,
G.R. No. 86806 July 19, 1989 however, unknown to petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in
Paras,  .J.: question, on condition that the same would be paid as short term loan at 3% interest.

 The law also applies if the name of the payee was left blank at the time of the its As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement
issuance. (State vs. Donaldson, 385 P2d 151.) Under Section 14 of the Negotiable whereby LS would lease the garage equipment and petitioner would pay the
Instrument Law, it is presumed that the person in possession of the check has authority corresponding rent with option to buy the same.
to complete it by writing the name of the payee.
The equipment was delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a postdated check and
 The law does not apply where the check was issued to cover required warranty deposit gave it to Gomez, who unknown to Magno, delivered the same to Teng. When the check
given by the complainant to enable the drawer to import equipment financed on a matured Magno requested Gomez not to deposit the same as he was no longer banking
lease-purchase basis where the drawer never rook out the warranty deposit when he with Pacific Bank. To replace the first check issued, petitioner issued another set of six
failed to pay the rent on the equipment and payee turned out to be the financier itself. (6) postdated checks, two of which were cleared and four of which are the subject of
this controversy. Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals,
thus it pulled out the garage equipment. It was then on this occasion that petitioner III. Offenses Penalized:
became aware that Corazon Teng was the one who advanced the warranty deposit.
a. Elements:
Petitioner with his wife went to see Corazon Teng and promised to pay the later but the
payment never came and when the four checks were deposited they were dishonored.  First offense- the elements of the first offense penalizes by B.P Blg. 22 are the
following:
Issue:
i. A person draws and issues a check;
Whether or not the checks were issued to apply “on account or for value” as to be
ii. The check is applied on account or for value;
criminally liable under B.P 22
iii. The person issuing the check KNOWS at the time of its issuance that he
Held:
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank for the full
No. By the nature of the “warranty deposit” amounting to P29,790.00 corresponding to payment of the check upon its present merit; and
30% of the “purchase/lease” value of the equipments subject of the transaction, it is
iv. The check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
obvious that the “cash out” made by Mrs. Teng was not used by the petitioner who was
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
just paying rentals for the equipment. It would have been different if petitioner opted to
drawer, without valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
purchase the pieces of equipment on or about the termination of the lease-purchase
agreement in which case he had to pay the additional amount of the warranty deposit  Second offense- the elements of the second offense penalizes by B.P Blg. 22 are
which should have formed part of the purchase price. As the transaction, did not ripen the following:
into a purchase, but remained a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned equipment, i. A person DRAWS AND ISSUES a check at a time when he had sufficient
which was pulled out by the lessor, when the petitioner failed to continue paying funds in or credit with the bank;
possibly due to economic constraints or business failure, then it is lawful and just that
the warranty deposit should not be charged against the petitioner. To charge petitioner ii. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain sufficient credit to cover
for the refund of a “warranty deposit” which he did not withdraw as it was not his own the full payment of the check if presented within ninety (90) days from
account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust “debt”, the date appearing in it; and
to say the least, since petitioner did not receive the amount in question. iii. for such reason the check is DISHONORED by the bank.

The crux of the matter rest upon the reason for the drawing of the postdated checks by
the petitioner, i.e. whether they were drawn or issued “to apply on account or for NOTE:
value” as required under Section 1 of BP 22. When viewed against the definition of
 Drawer- Only the person who issued the worthless check is liable under Batas Pambansa
catch-terms “warranty” and “deposit”, for which the post-dated checks were issued or
Blg. 22. Indorsers are not liable.
drawn, all the more, the alleged crime could not have been committed.
 Under Section 1 of B.P Blg. 22, in case of Corporations, Partnership, Companies, and
Entities, the person who actually signed the check are the ones criminally liabl.e.
 Account or value- in defining the first offense, the law requires the check be issued on
account or for value. The word “account” refers to a pre-existing obligation, while the
phrase “for value” refers to an obligation incurred simultaneously with the issuance of Magno vs. CA
the check. If the check was given as a donation and was dishonored, the drawer is not
G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992
criminally liable, since the check was not issued on account or for value.
Paras,  .J.:
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 applies even to checks issued as payment for the obligation of a
third party whom the drawer accommodated. ( People vs. Mancerra, 2 SCRA 444.)
Facts:

People vs. Mancerra Petitioner Magno was in the process of putting up a car repair shop sometime in April
1983, but he did not have the complete equipment that could make his venture
G.R. No. 86806 July 19, 1989 workable and he lacked the funds with which to purchase the necessary equipment to
Paras,  .J.: make such business operational. Petitioner approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of
Mancor Industries, for his needed car repair service equipment of which Mancor was a
distributor. Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation advising
 There must be a valid consideration for the issuance of check or it to be covered by its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing and able to supply the pieces of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Thus, a drawer who issued a worthless check in payment of a equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate the petitioner and provide him
gambling is not criminally liable, since it was issued in consideration of an illicit credit facilities. He arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up
obligation. (People vs. Pareja, 1 SCRA 205). a warranty deposit equivalent to thirty per centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces
of the equipment to be purchased amounting to P29,790.00. Since petitioner could not
come up with such amount, he requested Joey Gomez, on a personal level, to look for a
third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit,
People vs. Pareja however, unknown to petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in
G.R. No. 86806 July 19, 1989 question, on condition that the same would be paid as short term loan at 3% interest.

Paras,  .J.: As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement
whereby LS would lease the garage equipment and petitioner would pay the
 Where the drawer of a postdated check leased equipment from a financing company, a corresponding rent with option to buy the same.
third person, unknown to him, put up the warranty deposit for the lease being
required by the financing company, the lease was terminated for non-payment of the The equipment was delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a postdated check and
rent, and the drawer of the postdated check issued it to reimburse the third party for gave it to Gomez, who unknown to Magno, delivered the same to Teng. When the check
the warranty deposit, he cannot be held criminally liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 matured Magno requested Gomez not to deposit the same as he was no longer banking
in case the check is dishonored. He should not refund the warranty deposit, as he with Pacific Bank. To replace the first check issued, petitioner issued another set of six
never cashed the warranty deposit. (Magno vs. Court of Appeals) (6) postdated checks, two of which were cleared and four of which are the subject of
 this controversy. Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals, He might have an arrangement with the bank that the deposit in his savings account will
thus it pulled out the garage equipment. It was then on this occasion that petitioner be applied to pay for any check he issues (Record of Batasan, December 4, 1978, p.
became aware that Corazon Teng was the one who advanced the warranty deposit. 1043). In such case, if the bank erroneously dishonored the check because it overlooked
Petitioner with his wife went to see Corazon Teng and promised to pay the later but the that there was such an arrangement, the drawer will not be criminally liable (Record of
payment never came and when the four checks were deposited they were dishonored. Batasan, August 9, 1978, p. 507).

Issue: Even if the drawer had no funds in or credit with the bank at the time of the issuance of
the check, if he deposited sufficient funds to cover the value of the check and the check
Whether or not the checks were issued to apply “on account or for value” as to be
was honored upon its presentment, he is not criminally liable (Record of Batasan,
criminally liable under B.P 22
February 6, 1979, p. 1363).
Held:
No. By the nature of the “warranty deposit” amounting to P29,790.00 corresponding to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 will apply in case the drawer closed his account after issuing a
30% of the “purchase/lease” value of the equipments subject of the transaction, it is check and before it was presented for payment, for the drawer failed to keep funds
obvious that the “cash out” made by Mrs. Teng was not used by the petitioner who was sufficient for the payment of the check (Miller vs. Court of Appeals,189 SCRA xi).
just paying rentals for the equipment. It would have been different if petitioner opted to
purchase the pieces of equipment on or about the termination of the lease-purchase Miller vs. CA
agreement in which case he had to pay the additional amount of the warranty deposit
which should have formed part of the purchase price. As the transaction did not ripen G.R. No. 90562 July 09, 1990
into a purchase, but remained a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned equipment, Paras,  .J.:
which was pulled out by the lessor, when the petitioner failed to continue paying
possibly due to economic constraints or business failure, then it is lawful and just that Facts:
the warranty deposit should not be charged against the petitioner. To charge petitioner
for the refund of a “warranty deposit” which he did not withdraw as it was not his own Anita Miller was charged in six informations for violation of BP 22 for the alleged
account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust “debt”, issuance of six checks for the total amount of P140,000 which were
to say the least, since petitioner did not receive the amount in question. subsequently dishonored by the drawee-bank because of the closure of her
bank account.
The crux of the matter rest upon the reason for the drawing of the postdated checks by
the petitioner, i.e. whether they were drawn or issued “to apply on account or for The Trial Court found her guilty and Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling: BP 22
value” as required under Section 1 of BP 22. When viewed against the definition of applies to checks dishonored not only for “insufficiency of funds” but also by
catch-terms “warranty” and “deposit”, for which the post-dated checks were issued or reason of the closure of the drawer’s account.”
drawn, all the more, the alleged crime could not have been committed.
Issue:
 Funds or credit, meaning of. Even if the drawer does not have sufficient funds, if he has
sufficient credit with the bank to pay for a check he issued, he does not violate the law.
 Whether or not B.P 22 applies to checks dishonored by reason of the closure of
the drawer’s account
If the check in question is a post-dated check, it is not necessary to establish that the drawer
knew when he issued the check that he would not have sufficient funds to pay for it upon its
Held: presentment (People vs. Laggui,).

Yes, BP 22 applies. Section 1 BP 22 provides: People vs. Laggui

G.R. No. 76262-63 March 16, 1989
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 Griño-Aquino  J.:
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee-bank for the payment of
such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently Facts:
dishonored by the drawee-bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, The accused (now private respondent) Eliseo F. Soriano is a minister of the
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall by "Church of God in Jesus Christ, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth in the
penalized. Philippines." He first met the offended party Lolita O. Hizon in July or August,
1983, when her godson, Arcadio Mallari, who is a member of Soriano's
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having congregation, introduced the latter to her. Hizon became interested in Soriano's
sufficient funds or credit with the drawee-bank when he makes or religious group and became a member thereof on November 27, 1983.
draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within In the second week of August 1983, Soriano confided to Hizon his worries about
a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason his indebtedness of P250,000 to Dr. and Mrs. Zoilo Pangilinan. The obligation
it is dishonored by the drawee-bank. was secured by a mortgage on the congregation's property which would mature
on October 4, 1983. Hizon offered to help. She agreed to lend P250,000 in cash
The intent of the legislature in enacting BP 22 is to penalize all issuances of bad or to Soriano who would issue a post-dated check to her for the same amount.
worthless checks. There can be no serious dispute as to the correctness of the CA’s
ruling that the failure of a drawer to maintain an open bank account manifests precisely To raise the P250,000, Hizon borrowed against her time deposit at the Unity
his failure to keep funds in, or credit with, the drawee-bank sufficient for the payment of Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (USLA). Since she and her husband were
the check issued by him. leaving for the United States on a short trip in August 1983, she signed the
necessary papers for the loan before their departure. She also executed a
“Even applying simple logic, if a person is criminally liable under the law for issuing Special Power of Attorney authorizing her daughter, Rose Anne Hizon, to receive
checks without sufficient funds, with more reason should he be held criminally liable for from USLA the P250,000 check representing the proceeds of her loan and to
issuing checks without funds or for closing his account with a bank after issuing checks endorse and deliver it to Soriano upon Soriano's issuing to her a post-dated
and before they fall due.” check for the same amount of P250,000. Accordingly, on October 4, 1983, Rose
Anne got the P250,000 check from the USLA, endorsed it to Soriano who issued, The State filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the
in exchange therefore, his Banco Filipino check for the same amount. His check dismissal of the allegedly defective information in Criminal Case No. 2934 and
was undated. praying that the trial court be ordered to reinstate the case and render
judgment as the law and the evidence warrant.
When Lolita Hizon arrived from her trip on October 16, 1983, she asked Soriano
why his check bore no date. Soriano told her to date it "July 18, 1984" so he Respondent Judge filed his own Comments on the petition to defend his order
would have sufficient time to fund it. When Hizon deposited the check on that in the case. The accused adopted the Judge's comments as his own.
date, the drawee-bank dishonored it because Soriano's account with it had been
closed as of July 10, 1984, or one week before the due date of the check. Issue:

During the trial on the merits, Soriano admitted that when he issued the check Whether or not the information in Criminal Case No. 2934 is indeed "fatally
he did not have enough funds in the bank, and that he failed to deposit the defective."
needed amount to cover it. He alleged that he issued the check as "a temporary
receipt for what he had received" Despite repeated demands to make good his Held:
check, or to replace it with cash, Soriano did neither.
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, the State alleges that the
Soriano was thereafter charged by the Provincial Fiscal in two separate information is sufficient, hence, respondent Judge committed an error of law,
informations, for violation of BP 22 and estafa. After a joint trial of the two and/or gravely abused his discretion, in dismissing Criminal Case No. 2934. We
cases, respondent Judge Pedro Laggui of RTC Pampanga promulgated a joint agree.
decision: (1) dismissing the information in Criminal Case No. 2934 (for violation
of BP 22) for being "fatally defective"; and (2) convicting the accused of estafa in The accused was charged with having violated BP 22, which provides:
Criminal Case No. 3007.
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. — Any person who makes or
The trial court ruled that the accused could not be convicted of a violation of the draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
Bouncing Checks Law, BP 22, because the information failed to allege that he time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee-
knew, when he issued the check, that he would not have sufficient funds for its bank for the payment of such in full upon presentment, which check is
payment in full upon its presentment to the drawee-bank. In the opinion of the subsequently dishonored by the drawee-bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
trial judge Laggui, the information did not charge an offense, hence, he or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
dismissed it. without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished
by imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than on (1) year
The accused appealed the decision in Criminal Case No. 3007 to the Court of or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check
Appeals, which on July 26, 1988, reversed and set aside the judgment of the which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such
Regional Trial Court, thereby acquitting the accused Eliseo Soriano. fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
 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 elements of the offense are:
In other words, the presence of the first and third elements of the offense
1. the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or constitutes prima facie evidence that the second element exists. The maker's
for value, knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the
2. the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issue that he does not dishonor of his check for insufficiency of funds. *** THUS, if the check in
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee-bank for the payment of such question is a postdated check, it is not necessary to establish that the drawer
check in full upon its presentment, and knew when he issued the check that he would not have sufficient funds to pay
3. the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee-bank for for it upon its presentment.
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 This Court has ruled that:
payment.
Violation of the bad checks act is committed when one 'makes or draws and
The "defect" which respondent Judge perceived in the information was the issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue
failure to allege that the accused, as maker or drawer of the check at the time of that he does not have sufficient funds' or 'having sufficient funds in or credit
issue, knew of the insufficiency of his funds in the bank for payment of the with the drawee-bank . . . shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
check in full "upon its presentment". In the court's opinion, it was not enough credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of
for the information to have alleged that the accused knew when he issued the ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
check that he then did not have sufficient funds in the bank; the information dishonored by the drawee-bank.'" (People vs. Manzanilla, 156 SCRA 279, 282.)
should have alleged that the accused knew that he would not have sufficient
funds in the bank to pay the check in full "upon its presentment." It believed The GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE under BP 22 is the act of making and issuing
that the absence of an allegation that the accused foresaw or had a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for
foreknowledge of the insufficiency of his bank account upon presentment of the payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum
check for payment was fatal to the information. prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and
inimical to public welfare.
The interpretation is erroneous. Section 2 of the law provides:
Since the information in Criminal Case No. 2934 did allege that the accused, for
Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, value received, unlawfully and feloniously issued the postdated check "knowing
drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee fully well that he had no funds and/or insufficient funds in the bank . . . and
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within when the said check was presented for encashment, said check was dishonored
ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of and returned with the information that the said check is drawn against 'CLOSE
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer ACCOUNT' . . ." the information satisfies the legal definition of the offense under
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for Section 1, BP 22. It is sufficient. The trial court erred in dismissing it.
 check and of the dishonor of the check (Dingle vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148
However, although its (trial Court’s) decision is erroneous, that decision may not SCRA 597).
be annulled or set aside because it amounted to a judgment of acquittal. It
became final and executory upon its promulgation. The State may not appeal
that decision for it would place the accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for Since knowledge involves the internal state of the mind, it is difficult to prove
the offense in violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy (Art. knowledge. To facilitate the task of the prosecution, Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
III, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution). created the presumption that the drawer knew he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the bank if he fails to make good the check within five (5) banking days after
Since in the present case the accused Eliseo Soriano had been arraigned, being notified that the check had been dishonored for lack of funds. (Lozano vs.
pleaded "not guilty," and was tried upon a valid and sufficient information Martinez, 146 SCRA 322)
(although the lower court erroneously thought otherwise) and the case against The failure of the drawer to make good the check within five (5) days after being
him was dismissed by decision of the trial court (hence, without his consent and notified of its dishonor is not an element of the offense penalized by Batas Pambansa
not upon his motion), he has been placed in jeopardy or danger of punishment Blg.22. It is merely evidentiary. It merely creates a presumption.
for the offense charged. For this Court to re-assess the evidence against him
pursuant to the Government's appeal, would place him twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. Caras vs. CA

Although the dismissal of the information against him may constitute a G.R. No. 148557 August 07, 2003
miscarriage of justice, the erroneous dismissal by the trial court may not be Ynares-Santiago, J.:
disturbed for it would violate his basic constitutional right to be exempt from
double jeopardy. Facts:

Petition for review of the trial court's decision is DENIED. CARAS appealed the judgment of the RTC which was affirmed in toto by the CA
finding her guilty of 15 counts of violation of BP 22. The accused admitted that she
issued the 15 checks. She claimed, however, that the same were given to a certain
Marivic Nakpil, alleged sister of the complainant, as “guarantee deposit”, that is, for
 Knowledge, meaning of. To be liable for the offense penalized by Section 1 of Batas every gift check and purchase order given to the accused, she issued personal checks
Pambansa Blg. 22, the drawer must know at the time of the issuance of the check that to guarantee its payment. The checks are not to be encashed or deposited with any
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank. bank. Petitioner also denies having received any notice that the checks she issued had
been dishonored by the drawee bank
Thus, where a wife co-signed with her husband a check which was dishonored for lack of
funds, she could not be convicted under Batas Pambansa Blg.22 where she was not
aware of the transaction of her husband which was the basis of the issuance of the
Issues:
King vs. People
1. Whether or not a check issued merely to guarantee payment
of an existing obligation is covered by BP 22. G.R. No. 131540 December 02, 1999
2. Whether the prosecution evidence suffices to convict the
Panganiban, J.:
accused
Facts:
Held:
On several occasions in January 1992, petitioner discounted with complainant Ellen
1. YES. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum and is
Fernandez several Equitable Bank checks postdated from July 23 to 29, 1992 in the total
punishable under BP, provided the other elements of the offense are properly
amount of P1,070,000.00 in exchange for cash in the amount of P1,000,000.00. When
proved. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
the checks were deposited for payment, they were dishonored by the drawee bank
purpose for the check was issued, nor the terms and conditions for its issuance.
because they were drawn against an account with insufficient funds. Petitioner failed to
2. After carefully going over the records of the case, the Court found out that indeed
make good the checks despite demand. During the hearing on the merits of the case,
no clear evidence is shown on whether the petitioner was informed that her checks
the prosecution offered in evidences its documentary evidence the genuineness and
had been dishonored. The omission or neglect on the part of the prosecution
due execution of which was admitted by the petitioner. Petitioner filed a demurrer to
to present evidence that would establish the actual receipt by the accused of the
evidence without leave of court which was denied. Consequently, she was found guilty
demand letter which could have served as notice to her was fatal to its cause.
by the trial court which was also affirmed by the CA.
The absence of proof that the accused received any notice informing her of the fact
Issue:
that her checks had been dishonored and giving her 5 banking days within which to
make arrangements for the payment of the said check prevents the application of
Whether or not the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to warrant conviction of the
the disputable presumption that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds
accused
at the time she issued the checks. Absent such presumption, the burden shifts to the
prosecution to prove that petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds
Held:
when she issued the said checks, otherwise, she cannot be held liable under the law.
The elements of the crime are as follows:
The absence of any notice of dishonor personally sent to and received by the
accused is a violation of the accused right to due process. a. The accused makes, draws, or issues any check to apply to account or for value;
b. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
Failure of the prosecution to prove that the accused was given the requisite notice or credit; or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
of dishonor is a clear ground for her acquittal. drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment;
c. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have Juliet replaced the 19 checks issued by petitioners with 23 Far East Bank checks.
sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee bank for the payment of the check in full Petitioners then requested complainant to return the checks they had issued to her.
upon its presentment. Instead of returning the checks, Tagle deposited 7 of the checks with MetroBank where
Under BP 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that they were dishonored for having drawn against insufficient funds.
was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually Issue:
notified that the check was dishonored, and that s/he failed, within 5 banking days from
receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make Whether or not the prosecution must prove receipt by the drawer of notice of
arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a dishonor.
prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper.
Held:
It is true that the complainant sent petitioner a registered mail informing the latter that
the check had been dishonored. But the records show that the petitioner did not receive It is necessary in cases for violation of BP 22 that the prosecution prove that the issuer
it. had received a notice of dishonor. It is a general rule that when notice of dishonor is an
issue, the person alleging the notice was served must prove its existence. For BP 22
cases, there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, it is a general rule that, when
Ting vs. CA service of a notice is sought to be made by mail, it should appear that the conditions on
which the validity of such service depends on their existence, otherwise the evidence is
G.R. No. 140665 November 13, 2000
insufficient to establish the fact of service.
Melo, J.:
Petitioners, during trial denied having received the demand letter. Given petitioners’
Facts: denial of the receipt of the demand letter, it behooved the prosecution to present proof
that the demand letter was indeed sent through registered mail and that petitioners
From 1991 to 1992, Juliet Ting obtained loans in the aggregate sum of P2, 750,000.00 received the same. The prosecution failed to do this. Instead, it merely presented the
from private complainant Tagle for use in Juliet’s furniture business. As payment demand letter and registry return receipt as if mere presentation of the same is
thereof, Juliet issued 11 post-dated checks which upon maturity, were dishonored for equivalent to proof that some sort of mail matter was received by petitioners. Receipts
reasons of insufficiency of funds. She was then subsequently prosecuted for violation for registered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves; they must be
of BP 22. properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters.

Due to her financial difficulties, she requested her husband Victor Ting and her sister
Emily Chan (petitioners herein) to take over her furniture business, including the IV. Dishonor on other grounds:
obligation appurtenant thereto. Agreeing to Juliet’s request, petitioners issued 19
checks in replacement of the 11 checks earlier issued by Juliet. The planned takeover,  If the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank, he
however, did not materialize. Petitioners requested Juliet to reassume her obligation cannot evade prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 by maneuvering to
to private complainant by replacing the checks they had previously issued to the latter. have the check dishonored on some other grounds. Section 3 of Batas
 Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the bank to state always in the notice of dishonor character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted the partial
if there are no sufficient funds or credit to pay for the check, even if the payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed.
check is being dishonored for some other reason.
 Thus, if the check would have been dishonored for lack of funds but the ANSWER:
drawer stopped its payment, he will still be criminally liable if the check was Mr. Ed is liable of one count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) for the issuance of the
dishonored on this ground. However, if the drawer had a valid reason to first 3 checks because he issued them simultaneous with the transaction in order to
stop the payment of the check, he will not be criminally liable. defraud another. However, the 2 other checks had been issued in payment of a
(Memorandum Circular No. 4.) preexisting obligation, hence, estafa is not committed as the issuance of said checks
 If the drawer varied his signature in signing the check and the check was was not the efficient cause of defraudation. Mr. Ed is also liable of 5 counts of
dishonored for this reason, he will still be criminally liable if he actually did violation of BP 22, The Bouncing Checks Law, for the issuance of the 5 checks which
not have sufficient funds or credit to pay for the check. (Record of Batasan, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance
August 9, 1978, p. 507) of a worthless or bum check; deceit/fraud is not an element. Mr. Ed’s defense of
partial payments constituting novation and absence of demand letter will not free
BAR QUESTION (2011) him from the criminal liability already incurred. The partial payments would only
affect his civil liability while his claim of absence of demand letter is negated by the
Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of plumbing receipt of notice of dishonour.
materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of Mr. Benjie,
visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in the total
amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3)
V. Defenses:
postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance of
Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie,
a. Available Defenses
as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The
 Force- if the drawer was forced to issue the check, he incurs no criminal
following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated
liability under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because his act was not
checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same
voluntary.
assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. When
the checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of
 Force Majeure- If the check was dishonored because of the occurrence
funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One
of a force majeure after its issuance, the drawer is not criminally liable.
month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the
(Record of Batasan, December 4, 1978, p. 1038) Thus, if the check was
checks. Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint
dishonored because the current account of the drawer was garnished
against Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed. During the
after its issuance, the drawer was garnished after its issuance, the
preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several amounts from Mr. Ed as
drawer incurs no criminal liability. (Record of Batasan, August 9, 1978,
partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and insisted that the complaint
p. 508). The same holds true if after the issuance of the check, the
should continue despite the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters
drawer was declared insolvent, an assignee took charge of his assets,
that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely civil in
including his
  current account and for this reason the check was dishonored. His  Informing Payee- if a check was postdated and before its maturity, the
current account is in custodia legis. drawer informedthe payee he would not be able to deposit sufficient
funds to cover the amount of the check, he will still be criminally liable.
o Likewise, if an account of a quarrel between a married couple (Record of Batasan, August 9, 1978, Op. 503).
with a joint current account the wife withdrew all the funds
from their account without the consent of the husband and as a  Partial Payment- Partial payment by the drawer of the value of the
result a check previously issued by the husband was dishonored check isNot a defense. (Resolution No. 340, Series of 1981).
dishonored, the husband cannot be convicted. (State vs.
Haremza, 515 P2d 1217.)
VI. Criminal Prosecution:
BAR QUESTION (2013)
Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued  Number of Offenses- Each act of drawing a worthless check constitutes
a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. a separate violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.22. The rule that there is
Two days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds only one offense when the offender is actuated by one criminal intent is
and requested that the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric not applicable to special laws. (Memorandum Circular No. 4.)
deposited the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite
demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Big.  Venue- The court of the place where the worthless check was issued or
22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). Was the charge brought against Frank correct? the court of the place where it was deposited has jurisdiction to try a
criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (Que vs. People,
ANSWER: 154 SCRA 160; People vs. Manzanilla, 156 SCRA 279; People vs. Grospe.
Yes, the charges brought against Frank is correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum 157 SCRA 154; Limn vs. Rodrigo, 157 SCRA 487; Reyes vs. Court of
prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a APPEALS, G.R NO. 88378, JULY 9, 1989.
defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the purpose
for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the
issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason, the
request of Frankto defer the deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will
not militate against his prosecution for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be
charged. Moreover, if what is charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the
offended party, cannot be held criminally liable under Article 332, RPC. Que vs. People
G.R. No. 75217-18 September 21, 1987
b. Unavailable Defenses Paras, J.:

Facts:
Que issued a check, which bounced. He alleged that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case  Intervention of offended party- Since the payee of a worthless check is
because the checks that he issued were deposited outside of Quezon City, the place of issuance. entitled to receive the payment of the money for which a dishonored
He also denied liability because, according to him, his purpose in issuing the said checks was to check was issued, he can intervene through the appearance of a private
guarantee only the payment of the purchases made by Powerhouse Supply, Inc. in which, he is a prosecutor in a criminal prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa
manager. Blg. 22. (Banal vs. Tadeo.)
BANAL VS. TADEO
The lower court found Que guilty of the crime charged. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the G.R. No. 78911-25, December 11, 1987
CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court that
also denied the motion for Review on Certiorari of the decision of the CA and resolution that GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Quezon City, convicting herein petitioner of the crime of
violating BP 22 on two (2) counts. FACTS:
Fifteen information for violation of BP 22 were filed against Rosario Claudio before the RTC of
Issues: Quezon City assigned to Branch 84. The judge of said branch inhibited himself, and was re-
1. Whether or not the RTC of Quezon City has jurisdiction over said controversy raffled to Branch 105 presided by Judge Serquina. JudgeTadeo then replaced Judge Serquina. On
2. Whether or not BP 22 covers the act of merely issuing a check to guarantee payment 08 January 1987, the RTC issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito Bustos as
private prosecutor on the ground that the charge does not provide for any civil liability or
Held: indemnity.
1. Jurisdiction could be had by the RTC of Quezon City even if the checks were not
deposited and encashed in Quezon City because, said checks were issued at Quezon City. This Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. Respondent Claudio filed her
fact was admitted by petitioner in his answer to the civil complaint for collection of sum of opposition to the motion. The court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
money; he inferentially admitted that the purchases and issuance of the check in question were petition for certiorari.
made at Francis Hill Supply located at No. 194 Speaker Perez St. Quezon City. Thus, it is no
moment, whether said checks were deposited by the complainant in a bank located outside of ISSUE:
Quezon City. The determinative factor is the place of issuance which is Quezon City and Whether or not the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the
therefore, within the court’s jurisdiction. appearance of a private prosecutor.
2. As to petitioner’s second issue, it is likewise untenable. It is now settled that BP 22
applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued merely in the form of a deposit or RULING:
guarantee. The history of the enactment of subject statute evinces the definite legislative intent YES. Petitioner contends that every man criminally liable is also civilly liable, and hence
to make the prohibition all-embracing, without making any exception from the operation indemnity may be recovered from the offender regardless of whether or not BP 22 so provides.
thereof in favor of a guarantee. BB 22 was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing On the other hand, respondents argue that BP 22 is an offense against public order and hence, it
checks, to prevent checks from becoming useless “scraps of paper”, and to restore respectability is the State and the public that are the principal complainants; hence, there is no civil liability.
to checks, all without distinctions to the purpose of the issuance of the checks. Civil liability arises not so much because the act or omission is a crime, but because it caused
damage to another. What gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and the moral
duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his own
act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by IX. Liability of Corporate Officers:
law. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of the civil action. Such is not the
case in criminal actions for, to be criminally liable, it is enough that the act or omission
The person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of a corporation,
complained of is punishable, regardless of whether or not it also causes material damage to
company or entity is liable under BP 22. {[Llamado vs. CA SCRA 423 [1997]}.
another. Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so provides, indemnification of
the offended party may be had on account of the damage, loss or injury directly suffered as a
consequence of the wrongful act of another. The payee of the check is entitled to receive the
payment of money for which the worthless check was issued. Having been caused the damage, X. Violation of B.P. 22 may be a ground for disbarment:
she is entitled to recompense. The framers of the law could not have intended to leave the
offended private party defrauded and empty-handed by excluding the civil liability of the The bouncing check issued by respondent gave rise to at least 9 criminal
offender. information’s for estafa or violation of BP 22 against respondent, disbarment and
Civil Service disciplinary proceedings may proceed without legal obstacle although
VII. Proof of Damage Not Necessary: the criminal cases are still pending in court. (De Jesus vs. Collado, 216 SCRA 619
{1992]}.
Even if the payee suffered no damage as a result of the issuance of the bouncing
check, the damage to the integrity to the banking system cannot be denied. Damage
to the payee is not an element of the crime punished in PB 22 (Vaca vs. CA, 298 XI. Bouncing Checks Law is a Transitory and Continuing Crime:
SCRA 656 (1998).
BP 22 is a transitory or a continuous offense, and the theory is that a person
In the prosecution violating BP 22, complianant’s sole testimony suffices to identify indicted with a transitory offense may be validity tried in any jurisdiction where the
the dishonored checks and unless rebutted, the prosecution may rely on such offense was in part committed. (Uy vs. CA, 276 SCRA 367 [1997]; Ibasco vs. CA, 261
presumption to establish that element of the offense charged. It is for petitioner, as SCRA 449 [1996]).
accused, to rebut the presumption, disputable as it is. (Tadeo vs. People, 300 SCRA
744, 1998.)

VIII. Novation as Defense:

The “Novation Theory” does not apply where the offer to pay he debtor, which was
accepted by the creditor, turned out to be only an empty promise which was
effectively delayed the aggrieved party’s filing of a case for violation of PB 22
{Llamado vs. CA 270 SCRA 423,[1997]}