Bouncing Checks Law

I. Governing Law
a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
b. Date of Effectivity: June 29, 1979

II. Nature of the Offense

a. The gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment.
b. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bouncing check a malum
prohibitum, an act proscribed by the Legislature for being deemed
pernicious and inimical to public welfare.1
c. The enactment of B.P. 22 is a valid exercise of the police power and is not
repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment of debt. It
is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The
thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making
of worthless checks and putting them in circulation.

III. Acts punishable

a. Making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value
knowing at the time of issue that the check is not sufficiently funded
b. By having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of
issue but failing to keep sufficient funds therein or credit with said bank to
cover the full amount of the check when presented to the drawee bank
within a period of ninety (90) days.

IV. Elements of the offense

a. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or
for value;
b. The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue
there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
c. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank 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

1 People vs. Chua, G.R. No. 130632, 315 SCRA 326, 338 (1999).
 V. Checks covered by B.P. 22
a. Ordinary checks
b. Memorandum checks
c. Guarantee payment or collateral checks

VI. SECOND ELEMENT: How is Knowledge of lack of insufficiency of funds

established?
a. Presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds
b. Section 2 creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency
of funds
i. The check is presented to the bank within 90 days from date of
check
ii. Drawer receives NOTICE OF DISHONOR that such check has not
been paid by the bank
iii. Drawer fails to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon,
or make arrangements for payment in full within five banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawer
c. Knowledge should exist at the time of issuance that he did not have
enough funds or credit in the bank for payment upon presentment
d. What will prevent the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds
to arise?
i. If notice of dishonor is not sent to the drawer
ii. If there is no proof that the notice of dishonor was received by the
drawer
e. Oral Notice is NOT sufficient.
f. A postdated check cannot be dishonored if presented for payment before
its due date. Hence, demand letter sent before the checks maturity date is
NOT sufficient notice of dishonor.

VII. Failure or lack of consideration is NOT a defense in B.P. 22

a. The fact that the object of the contract is not of good quality is irrelevant in
the prosecution of a case involving B.P. 22, for the said law was enacted to
prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks
and putting them in circulation. It is not the non-payment of an obligation
 which the law punishes, but the act of making and issuing a check that is
dishonored upon presentment for payment.2

VIII. Estafa
a. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code
penalizes estafa when committed by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of
the fraud, by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of check.
b. The elements of the offense are:
i. A check is drawn or postdated in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued;
ii. There are no funds sufficient to cover the check; and
iii. The payee sustains damage thereby.

IX. Distinctions between B.P. 22 and Estafa

B.P. 22 Estafa (Article 315 par. 2d, RPC)

Even though check is issued in payment of The check is issued concurrently and
a pre-existing obligation, liability is reciprocally in payment of the exchange
incurred consideration. It must not be for a pre-
existing obligation
Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal Damage to the offended and deceit of the
liability offender are essential elements
Crime against public interest Crime against property
Only the drawer is liable, and if the drawer Not only the drawer, but the indorser may
is a juridical person, the officer thereof incur liability if he were aware at the time
who signed the check shall be liable; of the indorsement of the insufficiency of
Indorsers not liable funds
Drawer is given five (5) banking days from Drawer is given three (3) calendar days
notice of dishonor to make good the check from notice of dishonor to make good the
to avoid criminal liability check to avoid criminal liability
Malum Prohibitum Malum In Se

2 Ibasco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117488, September 5, 1966.