BATAS 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: ACTS PUNISHABLE

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 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, 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.
EXCEPTION OF SECTION 2:

The maker or drawer pays the holder of the

amount due ; 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 THE DRAWEE;
RULES OF EVIDENCE
The drawee shall, when refusing to pay the same upon
presentment, cause written, printed, or stamped in plain language,
or attached the reason for drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the
same: Provided, That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit
with drawee, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice
of dishonor or refusal. The introduction in evidence of any unpaid
and dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay
stamped, written or attached shall be prima facie evidence of the
issuance of check, and the due presentment to the drawee for
payment and the dishonor thereof, and the same was properly
dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the
drawee on dishonored check.
APPLICABLE PENALTIES

Imprisonment only;
Imprisonment and fine; or
Fine only
PREFERENCE OF IMPOSITION OF FINE

Bouncing check law ( BP. 22)

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.
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 Re:
Penalty for violation of BP.22

Impose the penalty of imprisonment; and

Impose subsidiary imprisonment in the event
that the accused who is found guilty of
violating the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22, is
unable to pay the fine which he is sentenced
to pay.
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000:

Establishes a rule of preference in the

application of the penal provisions of B.P.
Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of
both the offense and the offender clearly
indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact
without taint of negligence, the imposition of
a fine alone should be considered as the
more appropriate penalty.
VACA vs. PEOPLE

Facts: Petitioners were engaged in a manufacturing and

sale of refrigeration equipment. They issued a check
(10,000) for partial payment of security services provided
by GARDS. When the GARDS deposited the check it was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Again, the petitioner
issued a check (19,860.16) replacing the dishonored
check and paying their balance. The voucher was drawn
to the bank. After trial, Petitioners were found guilty for
violation of BP. 22 and each was sentenced to suffer one
year imprisonment and to pay a fine of 10, 000 and the
cost.
COTA: They had already paid the amount of the check.
HELD: Sentence of imprisonment is deleted and each
are ordered to pay a fine of 20, 000 pesos equivalent
the double amount of the check. They are Filipino
entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the
national economy. Apparently, they brought this
appeal, believing in all good faith, although
mistakenly, that they had not committed a violation of
B.P. Blg. 22.
 Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 Re:
Clarification of AC No. 12-2000

Clarifies Circular 12-2000, particularly the authority of

judges to impose the penalty of imprisonment for
B.P. 22 violations and impose subsidiary
imprisonment once a person found guilty of violating
the provisions of the said law is unable to pay the
fine sentenced.
Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is the
more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular
12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance.
Aside from threat of imprisonment that an issuer of a
bum check may face, he shall, after conviction, be
disqualified to run for public office for a certain period
of time. Under the Omnibus Election Code, any
person who has been sentenced by final judgment for
a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified
to be a candidate and to hold any office. As held by
the SC, violation of BP 22 is considered a crime
involving moral turpitude, just like the crime of
embezzlement, forgery, robbery and swindling.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BP.22 AND ESTAFA

The crime of Estafa is committed by postdating or issuing

a bad check. Deceit and damage are essential
elements of the offense and have to be established with
satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. (PEOPLE VS. GOROSPE)
For Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, the elements
of deceit and damage are not essential nor required.
An essential element of that offense is knowledge on the
part of the maker or drawer of the check of the
insufficiency of his funds on.
In estafa, it was deemed to exclude checks in
payment of pre-existing obligations, therefore the
deceit causing the defraudation must be prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud.
In BP. 22, the check is issued in payment for a pre-
existing obligation, thus the payee is not defrauded by
means of any prior or simultaneous deceit
perpetrated on him, by the drawer of the check.
Could the same check give rise to a
separate charge of estafa?

Yes. Estafa by means of bouncing checks is

separately punished under under Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code. An issuer of one
worthless check could be separately
charged with two offenses.
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy

FACTS: The petitioner, a customer of Pilipinas Shell

Petroleum Corporation, purchased oil products from
it. Simultaneous with the delivery of the products, he
issued nine (9) checks in payment. Upon presentation
to the Philippine National Bank, said checks were
dishonored for the reason that his account was
already closed. He was charged with 9 counts of
estafa and 1 count of violation of BP. 22.
COTA: Petitioner invokes double jeopardy.

HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate

offenses. Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for
pre-existing obligations, crime against property and
is mala in se. BP 22, deceit and damage not
required because mere issuance gives presumption
of guilt, can be for a pre-existing debt, crime against
public order and is mala prohibitum.
PEOPLE VS GOROSPE
FACTS: Respondent-accused paid check to SMC in
Bulacan for the beer he had purchased. The check
was forwarded in Pampanga but was dishonored
due to lack of funds. The case was filed in
Pampanga but was dismissed due to lack of
jurisdiction.

ISSUE: whether the court in Pampanga has

jurisdiction.
HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction. Violation of
BP 22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. A person charged
with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any
municipality or province where the offense was in part
committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which
some acts material and essential to the crime and
requisite to its consummation occur in one province and
some in another, the Court of either province has
jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the
first Court taking cognizance of the Case will exclude the
others.
 Bar Questions
A a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from B, a friend. To pay
the loan, A issued a postdated check to be presented for
payment 30 days after the transaction. Two days before the
maturity date of the check, A called up B and told him not to
deposit the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A
had not deposited in the drawee bank the amount needed to
cover the check. Nevertheless, B deposited the check in
question and the same was dishonored of insufficiency of
funds. A failed to settle the amount with B in spite of the latter's
demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as
the Bouncing Checks Law? Explain. (5%)
 Suggested answer:
Yes, A Is liable for violation of BP. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law),
Although knowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of funds at
the time of the issuance of the check is an essential element of the
violation, the law presumes prima facie such knowledge, unless within
five (5) banking days of notice of dishonor or nonpayment, the drawer
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such checks.
A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity
date of the check will not defeat the presumption of knowledge
created by the law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit of B.P. 22 will be
rendered useless.
 Bar question:
The accused was convicted under B.P, Blg. 22 for having issued
several checks which were dishonored by the drawee bank on
their due date because the accused closed her account after the
issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she could not be
convicted under Blg. 22 by reason of the closing of her account
because said law applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of
insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued the checks
concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank. While she admits
that she may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the
Revised Penal Code, she cannot however be found guilty of
having violated BP. 22. Is her contention correct? Explain.
 Suggested answer:
No. the contention of the accused is not correct. As long as
the checks issued were issued to apply on account or for
value, and was dishonored upon presentation for payment
to the drawee bank for lack of insufficient funds on their
due date, such act falls within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. Said
law expressly punishes any person who may have
insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issues the
check, but fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full
amount of the check when presented to the drawee bank
within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.
 Bar Question:
A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B's
financial problems. On his way, one of A's car tires blew up.
Before A left following the meeting, he asked B to lend him (A)
money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted
his bank deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating,
however, a replenishment of his account soon, B issued A a
postdated check with which A negotiated for a new tire.
When presented, the check bounced for lack of funds. The tire
company filed a criminal case against A and B. What would
be the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused?
Explain. (8%)
Suggested answer:

A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in

buying a new tire for his car may only be
prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time
of such negotiation that the check has no
sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he
is not criminally liable.
 B who accommodated A with his check may
nevertheless be prosecuted under BP 22 for having
issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that
it has no funds in the bank and that A will negotiate it
to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not be
prosecuted for estafa because the facts indicate that
he is not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing the
check which A negotiated. Obviously, B issued the
postdated check only to help A: criminal intent or
dolo is absent.