RFBT – Batasang Pambansa Blg.

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. - 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, 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.

Section 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 (5) banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

Section 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 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.

Not with standing 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.1âwphi1

Approved: April 3, 1979.

Discussion: Respicio and Co. Law Firm

CRIMINAL LAW: BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. BLG. 22)

The Bouncing Checks Law, also known as Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, was enacted to
address the issuance of worthless checks and penalize those who undermine the integrity of
commercial transactions through bad checks. Below is a comprehensive overview of the law,
its elements, penalties, procedural guidelines, and jurisprudential interpretations.

I. ELEMENTS OF B.P. BLG. 22

To successfully prosecute under B.P. Blg. 22, the following elements must be established:

1. Issuance of a Check

o The accused must have issued a check, which includes drawing and delivering
the instrument.

o The issuance must be for valuable consideration or as a guarantee.

2. Knowledge of Insufficient Funds

o At the time of issuance, the drawer must have known that he/she did not have
sufficient funds or credit in the bank to cover the check.

o Knowledge is presumed if:

 The bank dishonors the check for insufficiency of funds or credit; and

 The drawer fails to make arrangements for payment within five (5)
banking days from receiving the notice of dishonor.

3. Dishonor of the Check

o The check must have been presented within 90 days from issuance.

o It must have been dishonored for:

 Insufficiency of funds; or

 The closure of the account.

II. KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. Presumption of Knowledge

o The law presumes that the issuer had knowledge of insufficient funds if:

 The check is dishonored; and

 Notice of dishonor has been sent and no payment is made within 5

banking days.

2. Separate Liability from Civil Obligations

o B.P. Blg. 22 establishes criminal liability, which is distinct from any civil
obligation arising from the issuance of the check.

o The purpose is not to collect the amount but to punish the act of undermining
public confidence in negotiable instruments.

3. Nature of Offense

o The offense is malum prohibitum.

 Intent to defraud is not required; the mere act of issuing a worthless

check constitutes the offense.

4. Primacy of Notice of Dishonor

o The absence of proof of notice of dishonor is a valid defense.

o The prosecution must establish that the drawer received notice of dishonor
and was given an opportunity to settle.

5. Corporate Checks

o In cases where checks are issued by corporations, liability may attach to the
person who signed the check (e.g., corporate officers), not the corporation
itself.

6. Postdated Checks

o The law applies to postdated checks if dishonored under the same

circumstances.
III. PENALTIES

Under B.P. Blg. 22, the penalties are as follows:

1. Imprisonment

o Imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year for each count.

2. Fine

o A fine of an amount equal to double the amount of the check but not
exceeding Php 200,000.

3. Imprisonment and Fine

o The court has the discretion to impose both penalties.

4. Subsidiary Penalty

o In case of insolvency to pay the fine, the offender may be subject to

subsidiary imprisonment.

5. A.C. No. 12-2000

o Courts are allowed to impose only a fine if circumstances warrant it, as a

departure from the usual penalty of imprisonment and fine.

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES (A.C. Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001)

1. A.C. No. 12-2000: Non-Imposition of Imprisonment in Certain Cases

o The Supreme Court directed courts to consider penalties of fine alone for
first-time offenders or in cases where imprisonment would be unduly harsh.

2. A.C. No. 13-2001: Streamlining Procedures in B.P. Blg. 22 Cases

o Courts are required to expedite the resolution of B.P. Blg. 22 cases.

o Strict adherence to procedural timelines is mandated to prevent undue delay.

V. DEFENSES AGAINST B.P. BLG. 22

1. Absence of Notice of Dishonor

o If the drawer did not receive written notice of dishonor, liability cannot attach.

2. Payment Before Presentment

o If the issuer settles the obligation before the check is presented, no criminal
liability arises.

3. Check Issued as Guarantee

o If the check was issued as a pure guarantee (not for valuable consideration),
liability under B.P. Blg. 22 does not apply.

4. Lack of Authority

o If the accused did not sign or authorize the issuance of the check.

5. Forgery

o The drawer may raise forgery as a defense if the signature on the check was
not theirs.

VI. JURISPRUDENCE

1. Lozano v. Martinez (146 SCRA 323, 1986)

o Affirmed the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22, emphasizing the State’s interest
in safeguarding confidence in negotiable instruments.

2. Ravanera v. People (G.R. No. 172800, 2008)

o Reiterated the requirement of notice of dishonor and opportunity to pay.

3. Lim v. People (G.R. No. 130038, 1999)

o Held that a check issued in payment of pre-existing obligations is covered by

B.P. Blg. 22.

4. De Villa v. People (G.R. No. 195673, 2013)

o Distinguished civil liability from criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22.
VII. COMPLIANCE TIPS FOR DRAWERS

1. Ensure sufficient funds or credit in the account when issuing checks.

2. Monitor issued checks to avoid inadvertent dishonor.

3. Respond promptly to notices of dishonor.

4. Avoid issuing checks as guarantees if unsure of coverage.

Conclusion
The Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) is a vital measure to preserve the sanctity of
negotiable instruments in commerce. Compliance with its provisions and procedural
safeguards is essential to avoid criminal liability while maintaining the integrity of financial
transactions.