Bouncing Checks Law (BP22)

Atty. Michelle G. Bernardo, LL.M.

Atty. Jessa G. Bernardo
Gravamen of the offense
• The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of
making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment.
• It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law
punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a
debtor to pay his debt.
• The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal
sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in
circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public
interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law
punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an
offense against public order. (Lozano vs. Martinez, 2005)
How is BP 22 violated?

1. Offender knows at the time of issue that he does not

have sufficient funds in or credit with drawee bank.
2. At the time he draws or issues, he has sufficient funds
but he fails to keep sufficient funds to maintain a credit
to cover the full amount of the check if presented within
90 days from the date appearing thereon.
Elements/Requisites of the crime:

1. 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 there was no sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon
its presentment; and
3. The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the drawee bank to stop payment.
1st element: making, drawing, and issuance of any
check to apply for account or for value
• There is prima facie evidence of 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 the check is presented within 90 days from the
date of its issuance.
2nd element: knowledge of insufficiency of
funds at the time of issuance
• It is not enough that the accused issued the check that was
subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds. It must
also be shown beyond reasonable doubt that she knew of
the insufficiency of funds at the time the check was issued.
• In order to create the prima facie presumption that the
issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be shown
that he or she received a notice of dishonor and within 5
banking days thereafter and he or she failed to satisfy the
amount of the check or shall arrange for its payment.
Notice of dishonor
• Written notice of dishonor is required.
• Notice of dishonor must be sent to the issuer or drawer of
the check.
Duty of the Drawer
• The requirement of notice, its sending to, and its actual
receipt by, the drawer or maker of the check gives the latter
the option to prevent criminal prosecution if he pays the
holder of the check the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check
within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that the
check has not been paid.
Payment before the filing of the criminal
information in court
• This will extinguish criminal liability if done before the filing of
the information in court.
• Although the liability for payment was made beyond the 5-day
period given by law, the fact that the accused already paid the
value of the dishonored check after having received subpoena
from the prosecutor’s office should have forestalled the filing of
the information in court.
Payment after the filing of the criminal
information in court
• It will no longer have the effect of exonerating the accused.
• Since from the commencement of the criminal proceedings in
court, there is no circumstance whatsoever to show that the
accused had every intention to mitigate or totally alleviate the
ill effects of his issuance of the unfunded check, then there is
no equitable and compelling reason to preclude his
prosecution. In such a case, the letter of the law should be
applied to its full extent.
Payment after the filing of the criminal
information in court
• It will no longer have the effect of exonerating the accused.
• Since from the commencement of the criminal proceedings in
court, there is no circumstance whatsoever to show that the
accused had every intention to mitigate or totally alleviate the
ill effects of his issuance of the unfunded check, then there is
no equitable and compelling reason to preclude his
prosecution. In such a case, the letter of the law should be
applied to its full extent.
Estafa by issuing bouncing check vs. BP 22
BP 22 Estafa by issuing bouncing check
Mere issuance of a check that is dishonored Not applicable
gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on
the part of the drawer that he issued the same
without sufficient funds and hence punishable

The mere act of issuing a worthless check, There is postdating or issuance of a check in
either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even payment of an obligation contracted at the
as an evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a time the check was issued
mode of payment is covered by B.P. 22.
Estafa by issuing bouncing check vs. BP 22
BP 22 Estafa by issuing bouncing check
Alternative penalties which are imposable (Refer to the next slide)
under BP 22 are: (1) imprisonment of not less
than 30 days, but not more than 1 year; (2) a
fine of not less or more than double the
amount of the check, but not to exceed
P200,000; or (3) both fine and imprisonment,
at the discretion of the court.
Penalty of Art. 315(2d), RPC
• If the amount of the fraud does not exceed Forty thousand pesos
(₱40,000), the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed. (2 months and 1 day to 6
months)

• If the amount of the fraud is over Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000)

but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos
(₱1,200,000), the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prisión correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed. (4
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months)
Penalty of Art. 315(2d), RPC
• If the amount of the fraud is over One million two hundred
thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million
four hundred thousand pesos (₱2,400,000), the penalty of prisión
correccional in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed. (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months)

• If the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred

thousand pesos (₱2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million
four hundred thousand pesos (₱4,400,000), the penalty of prisión
correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed. (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day
to 8 years)
Penalty of Art. 315(2d), RPC
• If the amount of the fraud exceeds Four million four hundred
thousand pesos (₱4,400,000), the penalty of prisión mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed, adding one year for each
additional Two million pesos (₱2,000,000); but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. (6 years
and 1 day to 8 years)
Estafa by issuing bouncing check vs. BP 22
BP 22 Estafa by issuing bouncing check
Principally a crime against public interest as it Crime against property
does injury to the entire banking system
Mala prohibita Mala in se