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

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

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

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.

Whats the reason or rationale for BP 22?

BP 22 is intended to prohibit the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation. Even years
ago, the approximate value of bouncing checks was
about200 millionpesosper day. The issuance of
bouncing checks is a crime not only against property.
The magnitude of the crime has an adverse effect on
the greater public interest. The stability and
commercial value of checks as currency substitutes
will be seriously affected. This, of course, has serious
repercussions in trade and in banking communities.

In order to afford protection to business and the

public in general, and prevent the circulation of
worthless checks, Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, also
known as An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing
and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or
Credit and For Other Purposes, was approved in April
1979.
The law punishes the acts of making and issuing a
check with knowledge by the issuer that at the time
the check is issued, he does not have sufficient funds,
and the failure to keep sufficient funds to cover the
full amount of the check if presented within a period
of 90 days from the date appearing on the check.

To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the

following essential elements must be present:
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 insufficiency of funds or creditor
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
(1)

Does BP 22 violate the Constitutional

mandate that no person shall be imprisoned
for debt?
It has been argued that BP 22 in reality punishes
the non-payment of debt. However, while it is true
that no person can be imprisoned for debt, what BP
22 punishes is the act of issuing bad checks, and
not the failure to pay a debt. Its not a bad debt
law; its rather a bad check law. Its not designed
to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.

BP 22 punishes the issuer of the worthless check with

imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more
than one year or a fine of not less than but not more
than double the amount of the check, which fine shall
in no case exceed P200,000 or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Prior to the
amendmentofBP Blg. 129 by Republic Act (RA) 7691
(An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the
Metropolitan Trial Court), the Regional Trial Court may
acquire jurisdiction over BP 22 cases depending on the
penalties imposed. However, with the subsequent
amendment by RA 7691, the Metropolitan Trial Court
assumes exclusive jurisdiction over BP 22 cases.

In April 2003 in order to facilitate an expeditious

and inexpensive determination of BP 22 cases, the
SC had included the violation of BP 22 as one of the
cases governed by the Rules of Summary
Procedure. One notable provision under the
Summary Procedure is that the Court shall not order
the arrest of a person who was charged except for
failure to appear in Court whenever required.

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.

Does BP 22 impairs the freedom of people to

enter into contracts?
The Constitution also guarantees the right to enter
into contract. Each one should be responsible for
the contracts entered into. If you get into a bad
bargain, if you get a bad check, then its your fault
for not making sure that the other person is
trustworthy. Checks, however, are not simple
contracts between two persons. It is a commercial
instrument which, in this modem day and age, has
become a convenient substitute for money. It is an
integral part of the banking system. Besides, what
the law protects are lawful contracts.

More than three decades after its enactment, does

BP 22 still serve its purpose? Does the law still
serve as a deterrent to those unscrupulous issuers
of bum checks.
Let us consider these:
(1) It is undeniable that what deters a person from
committing a crime is the possibility of arrest and
imprisonment. When violation of BP 22 was
included in those governed by the Summary
Procedure, a warrant of arrest is not anymore issued
when the case is filed in Court. It is only when the
accused fails to appear in Court that a warrant of
arrest may be issued against him;

(2) Since the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts

have exclusive jurisdiction over violations of BP 22,
no Hold Departure Orders can be issued against
those violators
since Metropolitan/Municipal Trial
Courts have no power to issue the same. Accused
under trial can thus easily evade prosecution by
leaving the country; and (3) The
aggrieved parties
have also failed to pursue the case for
BP 22 since
the Courts require them to pay the corresponding
filing fees. They need to shell out amounts for filing
fees after they have been duped and victimized
with checks, which they cannot encash.

Let us take a look at the landmark cases

regarding BP 22 or Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:
1)

In the case of Bax vs. People, G.R. No.

149858, 5 September
2007, It is the main
intention of the law to make the issuer of a
worthless check liable since the introduction of
worthless checks is not just harmful to the
innocent payees but the entire economy, as well.
However, one must bear in mind that the mere
issuance of a worthless check would not make
one liable for BP 22.

It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove not

only that the accused issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored, but it must be
established that the accused was actually
notified that the check was dishonored.
The Notice of Dishonor must be in writing. A
mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of a
check is not enough to convict him with violation
of BP 22.

2) In Lozano v. Martinez, the Court ruled that

the gravamen of the offense is the act of making
and issuing a worthless check or any check that is
dishonored upon its presentment for payment and
putting them in circulation. The law includes all
checks drawn against banks. The law was
designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the
deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing
checks with insufficient or no credit or funds
therefor. Such practice is deemed a public
nuisance, a crime against public order to be
abated.

The mere act of issuing a worthless check, either

as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an
evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a mode of
payment is covered by B.P. 22. It is a crime
classified as malum prohibitum.
The law is broad enough to include, within its
coverage, the making and issuing of a check by
one who has no account with a bank, or where
such account was already closed when the check
was presented for payment.

As the Court in Lozano explained: The effects of the

issuance of a worthless check transcends the private
interests of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of the community
at large.
The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee
or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful
practice of putting valueless commercial papers in
circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very well
pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the
banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of
society and the public interest.

3) In the case ofPanaguiton, Jr. v. Department of

Justice,
the Court categorically ruled that
commencement
of
the
proceedings
for
the
prosecution of the accused before the Office of the
City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive
period for the offenses they had been charged under
BP Blg. 22.Aggrieved parties, especially those who do
not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their
causes, should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily
further simply because of circumstances beyond their
control, like the accuseds delaying tactics or the delay
and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.

4) In the case of Svensen vs People, G.R. No. 175381,

February 26, 2008, For petitioner to be validly convicted of the
crime under B.P.Blg. 22, the following requisites must thus
concur:
(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 thedraweebank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment; and

(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by

thedraweebank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank
to
stop
payment.

5) As held in Domagsang vs. Court of Appeals,

while Section 2 of B.P. 22 indeed does not state
that the notice of dishonor be in writing, this must
be taken in conjunction with Section 3 of thelaw,
i.e., "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". A mere oral notice or demand to pay
would appear to be insufficient for conviction
under the law.

In our view, both the spirit and letter ofthe

Bouncing Checks Law require for the act tobe
punished thereunder not only that the accused
issued a checkthat is dishonored, but also that
theaccused has actually been notified in writing of
the fact of dishonor. This is consistent with the rule
that penal statues must be construed strictly
against the state and liberally in favor ofthe
accused.

Now, let us discuss the circulars regarding BP

22:
1)

In Administrative Circular 12-2000 issued on

November 21, 2000, the SC required all courts
and judges concerned to take note of the policy
rendered in those two cases, particularly on the
matter of the imposition of penalties, making it
appear that violation of BP 22 would only merit
fines.

But the SC was quick to issue another

circular,AM. 00-11-01- SC on February 13,
2001, clarifying that when A.M. 12-2000 was
issued,
it
was
not
meant
to
remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to
lay down a rule of preference in the application
of the penalties provided for inBP 22.
In effect, judges are not directed to impose fine
only as penalty for BP 22, instead they are
directed to exercise their sound discretion, and
taking
into
consideration
the
peculiar
circumstances of each case, to determine
whether the imposition of a fine alone would best

2) ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001,

February 14, 2001
SUBJECT :CLARIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 ON THE PENALTY FOR
VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BOUNCING CHECK
LAW.

Clarification has been sought by concerned

Judges and other parties regarding the operation
ofAdministrative Circular 12-2000 issued on 21
November 2000.In particular, queries have been
made regarding the authority of Judges to:

1. Impose the penalty of imprisonment for

violations ofBatas Pambansa Blg. 22;and

2. Impose subsidiary imprisonment in the event

that the accused who is found guilty of violating
the provisions ofB.P. Blg. 22,is unable to pay the
fine which he is sentenced to pay considering
thatAdministrative Circular No. 12-2000adopted
the rulings in Eduardo Vaca v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998, 298 SCRA
656) and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines
(G.R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000) as a policy
of the Supreme Court on the matter of the
imposition of penalties for violations of B.P. Blg.
22, without mentioning whether subsidiary
imprisonment could be resorted to in case of the

The clear tenor and intention ofAdministrative

Circular
No.
12-2000is
not
to
remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to
lay down a rule of preference in the application of
the penalties provided for inB.P. Blg. 22.

The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not

foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat
the legislative intent behind the law.

Thus,Administrative Circular No. 12-2000establishes a

rule of preference in the application of the penal
provisions ofB.P. Blg. 22such 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. Needless to say, the determination of whether
the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone
rests solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge decide
that
imprisonment
is
the
more
appropriate
penalty,Administrative Circular No. 12-2000ought not
be deemed a hindrance.

It is, therefore, understood that:

1.Administrative Circular 12-2000does not

remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty
for violations ofB.P. Blg. 22;

2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of

sound discretion, and taking into consideration
the peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone
would best serve the interests of justice or
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment
would depreciate the seriousness of the offense,
work violence on the social order, or otherwise be
contrary to the imperatives of justice;

3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused

be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal
obstacle to the application of theRevised Penal
Codeprovisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

The issuance of this Administrative Circular was

authorized by the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 0011-01-SC at its session of 13 February 2001.

The Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court and

the Court Administrator shall immediately
cause the implementation of this Administrative
Circular.

This Administrative Circular shall be published in

a newspaper of general circulation not later than
20 February 2001.

Issued this 14th day of February, 2001.

3) OCA CIRCULAR NO. 121-2014

TO: EXECUTIVE / PRESIDING JUDGES, CLERKS OF
COURT / OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE / ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICERS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL
COURTS
SUBJECT : CLARIFICATION ON THE COLLECTION OF
POSTPONEMENT FEE IN CONSOLIDATED CASES

Queries have been brought to the attention of this

Office as to the proper interpretation and
application of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of
Court, specifically on the postponement fee to be
collected in consolidated cases.
The Court in Chua v. The Executive Judge, G.R. No.
202920, 2 October 2013, explained the rationale
on collecting fees, albeit on the subject of docket
fees, on each individual case and not on its
entirety. It declared, in part, the following
justifications:

In the instant case, there are a total of forty (40)

counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 that was filed
before the MeTC. And each of the forty (40) was, in
fact, assessed its filing fees, individually, based on
the amount of check one covers.
Under the rule of criminal procedure, the filing of
the forty (40) counts is equivalent to the filing of
forty (40) different informations, as each count
represents an independent violation of BP Blg. 22.
Filing fees are, therefore, due for each count and
may be paid for each count separately.

Second. In an effort to justify her refusal of

petitioner's request, the Executive Judge further
argues that since all forty (40) counts of violation
of BP Blg. 22 were brought about by a single
complaint filed before the OCP and are now
consolidated before the court, the payment of
their filing fees should be made for all or none at
all.

That all forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 all

emanated from a single complaint filed in the OCP is
irrelevant. The fact remains that there are still forty (40)
counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 that were filed before
the MeTC and, as a consequence, forty (40) individual
filing fees to be paid. Neither would the consolidation of
all forty (40) counts make any difference.
Consolidation unifies criminal cases involving related
offenses only for purposes of trial. Consolidation does
not transform the filing fees due for each consolidated
into one indivisible fee.

Henceforth,
considering
the
foregoing
pronouncements, the collection of a postponement fee,
whenever there are consolidated cases filed in the trial
court, should be made separately on each case
included therein, and not on the entire or collective fee
for the consolidated cases, since the mode of
consolidation is merely underscored for purposes of
trial, and does not in any way affect the collection of an
individual postponement fee for each case involved in
the consolidation. Further, the rule shall not only be
exclusively applied to consolidated B.P. 22 cases, but
shall also equally apply to all types of cases subject of
consolidation.

For your information,

compliance.

guidance,

and

strict

16 September 2014
JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator

4) Circular No. 57-97

TO : COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS,
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURTS,
MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, ALL MEMBERS
OF THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONSERVICE, AND
ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT: RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING
AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL

Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the contrary

notwithstanding, the following rules and guidelines
shall henceforth be observed in the filing and
prosecution of all criminal cases under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 which penalizes the making or
drawing and issuance of a check without funds or
credit:

1. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa

Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the
corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed or
recognized.

2. Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal

and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in
full the filing fees based upon the amount of the
check involved, which shall be considered as the
actual damages claimed, in accordance with the
schedule of fees in Section 7(a) and Section 8(a),
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as last amended
by Administrative Circular No. 11-94 effective
August 1, 1994.

Where the offended party further seeks to enforce

against the accused civil liability by way of
liquidated,
moral,
nominal,
temperate
or
exemplary
damages,
he
shall
pay
the
corresponding filing fees therefor based on the
amounts thereof as alleged either in his complaint
or in the information.
If not so alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the amount of
such fees shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment.

3. Where the civil action has heretofore been

filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated with the
criminal action upon application with the court
trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in
accordance with the pertinent procedure outlined
in Section 2(a) of Rule III governing the
proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.

4. This Circular shall be published in two (2)

newspapers of general circulation and shall take
effect on November 1, 1997
September 16, 1997.
(Sgd.)ANDRES R. NARVASA
Chief Justice

5) ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 February

21, 2001
RE :PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF B.P. BLG. 22
Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22(An Act Penalizing the Making or
Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds
for Credit and for Other Purposes)imposes the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not
more than one (1) year or a fine of not less than but not
more than double the amount of the check, which fine
shall in no case exceed P200,000, or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

In its decision inEduardo Vaca, v. Court of

Appeals(G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998; 298
SCRA 656, 664) the Supreme Court (Second
Division) per Mr. Justice V. Mendoza, modified the
sentence imposed for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 by
deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing
only the penalty of fine in an amount double the
amount of the check. In justification thereof, the
Court said:

Petitioners are first-time offenders. 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.

Otherwise, they could simply have accepted the

judgment of the trial court and applied for probation
to evade a prison term. It would best serve the ends
of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the
range of discretion allowed by Section 1, par. 1, the
same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of
redeeming valuable human material and preventing
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and
economic usefulness with due regard to the
protection of the social order.

In this case, we believe that a fine in an amount

equal to double the amount of the check involved is
an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the
petitioners In the recent case of Rosa Lim v. People
of the Philippines (G. R. No. 130038, 18 September
2000), the Supreme Court en banc, applying Vaca
also deleted the penalty of imprisonment and
sentenced the drawer of the bounced check to the
maximum of the fine allowed by B.P. Blg. 22, i.e.,
P200,000, and concluded that such would best
serve the ends of criminal justice.

All courts and judges concerned should henceforth

take note of the foregoing policy of the Supreme
Court on the matter of the imposition of penalties
for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court Administrator
shall cause the immediate dissemination of this
Administrative Circular to all courts and judges
concerned.

This Administrative Circular, referred to and

approved by the Supreme Court en banc, shall take
effect upon its issuance.

Issued this 21st day of February, 2001.

[Sgd.] HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
Chief Justice

In the end, there appears a need to revisit the

provisions of BP 22 and other laws affecting the
same to afford the fullest protection to the public
and the economy in general. A check as a substitute
for money plays a vital role in commercial
transactions. Any person who wishes to trample
upon the smooth flow of commercial transactions
must be held liable.