BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (BP Blg.

22)

A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand (Sec. 185, Act No. 2031).

The word "credit" shall be construed to mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment
of such check.

Punishable Acts under BP Blg. 22:

1. Making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds.
Elements:
• That a person makes or draws and issues any check;
• The check is drawn or issued to apply on account or for a valuable consideration;
• The person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and
• At the time, the check was presented for payment at due date, the same was dishonored 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.
2. Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check.
Elements:
• That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws
and issues a check;
• 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; and
• That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank.

Persons Liable:
1. Any person who makes or draws and 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.
2. 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 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 BP Blg. 22.
*A stolen check cannot give rise to a violation of B.P. 22 because the check is not drawn for a valuable
consideration. Such checks were not made to apply to a valid, due and demandable obligation. This, in effect, is
a categorical ruling that the fact from which the civil liability of respondent may arise does not exist (Ching vs
Nicdao, GR 141181, April 27, 2007).

Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Fund

Refusal of the drawee bank to pay the check due to insufficiency of funds when presented with 90 days
from the date of the check shall be prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds, unless the drawer or maker
pays the holder the amount due thereon or makes arrangements for the payment thereof by the drawee within
five (5) banking days after receipt of notice that the check was dishonored.

*To hold a person liable under BP Blg. 22, the prosecution must not only establish that a check was issued and
that the same was subsequently dishonored, it must further be shown that accused knew at the time of the
issuance of the check that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment. In as much as the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at
the time of the issuance of the check involves a state of mind of the person making, drawing or issuing the check
which is difficult to prove, Sec. 2 of BP Blg. 22 creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge. For this
presumption to arise, the prosecution must prove the following: (a) the check is presented within ninety
(90) days from the date of the check; (b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has
not been paid by the drawee; and (c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check the
amount due thereon, or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice
that such check has not been paid by the drawee. In other words, the presumption is brought into existence only
after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof,
he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. A notice ofdishonor
received by the maker or drawer of the check is thus indispensable before a conviction can ensue (Dico
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141669, February 28, 2005; Resterio v. People, G.R. No. 177438, September 24,
2012).
*Verbal notice of dishonor is NOT sufficient. The notice of dishonor must be in writing. A mere oral notice or
demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law (Marigomen v. People, G.R. No.
153451, May 26, 2005; Domagsang v. CA, G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000).

RFBT by Atty. Bernard D. Bakilan, CPA, LLM Page 1 of 2

General Rule: There is prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was presented
within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored.

Exceptions:
1. When the check was presented AFTER 90 days from date.
2. When the maker or drawer:
a. Pays the holder of the check in cash, the amount due within five banking days after receiving notice
that such check has not been paid by the drawee; or
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five banking days after
notice of non-payment.

Duty of the Drawee

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 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 tothe 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.
*Under Sec. 1, Par. 1 of BP Blg. 22, it is implied that when the stop payment order is with a valid reason, there
can be no violation of BP Blg. 22.
*BP 22 does not cover manager’s check because of its peculiar character and general use in the commercial world,
it is as good as the money it represents and is therefore deemed as cash.
*The law does not distinguish the currency involved under BP Blg. 22. Foreign checks, provided they are either
drawn and issued in the Philippines, though payable outside thereof are within the coverage of said law (De Villa
v. CA, G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991).

BP Blg. 22 Estafa [Art. 315, 2(d) of RPC]

Malum prohibitum Malum in se
Crime against public interest. Crime against property.
Deceit not required. Deceit is an element.
Punishes the making or drawing of any The act constituting the offense is
check that is subsequently dishonored, postdating or issuing a check in payment
whether issued in payment of an of an obligation when the offender has no
obligation or to merely guarantee an funds in the bank or his funds deposited
obligation. Issuance of a check not the therein were not sufficient to cover the
non-payment of obligation is punished. amount of the
check.
Violated if check is issued in payment of Not violated if check is issued in
a pre-existing obligation. payment of a pre-existing obligation.
Damage not required. There must be damage.
Drawer is given 5 banking days to make Drawer is given 3 days to make
arrangements of payment after receipt arrangements of payment after receipt
of notice of dishonor. of notice of dishonor.

*Double recovery is not allowed by the law. Settled is the rule that the single act of issuing a bouncing check may
give rise to two distinct criminal offenses: estafa and violation of B.P. 22. However, the recovery of the single civil
liability arising from the single act of issuing a bouncing check in either criminal case bars the recovery of the
same civil liability in the other criminal action. While the law allows two simultaneous civil remedies for the
offended party, it authorizes recovery in only one. In short, while two crimes arise from asingle set of facts,
only one civil liability attaches to it (Rodriguez v. Hon. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34, July29, 2005).

Criminal Liability
If the accused is found guilty, BP 22 provides that the penalty for its violation is imprisonment of not less
than thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more thandouble
the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000),or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

*A fine is only preferred over an imprisonment sentence if it would better serve the interests of justice — such as
if the accused is a first time offender, or there is good faith involved. Even if only a fine is imposed, the accused
may still suffer subsidiary imprisonment if he is unable to pay.
*Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but
not more than one (1) year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) years in accordance with
the Act No. 3326. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of
proceedings against the guilty person (People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012).

RFBT by Atty. Bernard D. Bakilan, CPA, LLM Page 2 of 2