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. 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.

Approved: April 3, 1979.

Bouncing Checks (B.P. 22)

Published by Atty. Fred July 20th, 2006 in Corporate and Investments, Criminal
Law and Litigation and Labor Law. 9 Comments

20Share

Some people still have confidence, which confidence may be regarded as

misplaced by others, in the deterrent effect of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, also
known as the “Bouncing Checks Law” (full text here). Here are some things a
layman should know:

1. Filing fees are generally not required for criminal cases. For B.P. 22 cases,
however, the complainant is required to pay the filing fee (based on the value of
the check/s and the damages claimed, just like in civil cases) upon filing of the
case in court.

2. One major deterrent against the issuance of bouncing checks is the threat of
a warrant of arrest being issued once the criminal case is filed in court. This is
no longer true. No warrant of arrest is issued unless the accused fails to appear
when required by the court.

3. Even if a criminal case under B.P. 22 is filed, the court cannot issue a hold-
departure order. All violations of the Bouncing Checks Law, regardless of the
amount involved, are filed only with the municipal/metropolitan trial courts.
These courts cannot issue a hold-departure order.

4. Courts have the discretion of imposing: (a) imprisonment only; (b) fine only;
OR (c) both. It is entirely possible that only a fine, without imprisonment, will be
imposed.

5. The issuer is not automatically liable simply because the check

“bounced”. A check generally “bounces” when dishonored upon
presentment (reasons include: account closed, drawn against insufficient funds
or DAIF). However, it is indispensable that the issuer must be notified in
WRITING about the fact of dishonor, and he has five (5) days from receipt of the
written notice within which to pay the value of the check or make arrangements
for the payment thereof. This is based on the 1999 decision of the Supreme
Court in King vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 131540).
Recently, the SC “appears” to have relaxed this ruling in the 2005 case of Yulo
vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. 142762). In this case, the SC reiterated
the elements or requisites of the offense penalized by BP 22:

(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for
value;

(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and

(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficient
funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

It is immediately clear that the “written notice” is not an element of the crime.
In fact, in the Yulo case, the High Tribunal rejected the argument of the accused
regarding the absence of a written notice, thus:

We likewise find no reason to sustain petitioner’s contention that she was

not given any notice of dishonor. Myrna had no reason to be suspicious of
petitioner. It will be recalled that Josefina Dimalanta assured Myrna that
petitioner is her “best friend” and “a good payer.” Consequently,
when the checks bounced, Myrna would naturally turn to Josefina for help. We
note that Josefina refused to give Myrna petitioner’s address but promised
to inform petitioner about the dishonored checks.

This ruling, however, did not categorically overturn the doctrine enunciated in
the earlier King case. In other words, at this stage, both sides could logically
argue either way.