BOUNCING CHECKS LAW BATAS PAMBANSA Blg.

22

Section 1. Checks Without Sufficient Funds

Offenses punished in BP 22

1) Making or Drawing and issuing a check knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds.

Elements:
a. That a person draws a check.
b. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.
c. That the person knows that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check upon its presentment.
d. That the 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) Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover check if presented within a period of 90 days from the
date appearing thereon.

Elements:
a. That a person has sufficient funds with the drawee bank when he makes or issues a check
b. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount if
presented within a period of 90 days from the date of appearing thereon.
c. That the check is dishonored.

Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds:

Refusal of drawee bank to pay the check due to insufficiency of funds when presented
within 90 days from the date of the check shall be prima facie knowledge of insufficiency
of funds, unless the drawer or maker pays the holder the amount due thereon or makes
arrangements for the payment thereof by the drawee within five (5) banking days after
receipt of notice that the check was dishonored.
That the checks were presented beyond the 90-day period provided in Sec.2 of BP22 is
not an element of the offense but merely a condition for the prima facie presumption of
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. (NAGRAMPA vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 146211. August 6, 2002)

Under SC Administrative Circular 12- 2000:

Where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a
clear mistake of fact without taint of intelligence, the imposition of fine alone should be
considered as the more appropriate penalty.

It mere lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. 22.
The circular does not delete the penalty of imprisonment, for should the judge decide that
imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, the circular ought not to be a hindrance.

Prosecution under BP 22 shall be without prejudice to any liability for any violation in the RPC.

The fine under BP22 is based on the amount of the check and is without regard to the amount of
damage caused.

The accused will be liable for the dishonor of the check even if it was issued in payment of a
preexisting legal obligation as he issued that check to apply on account.

BP Blg. 22 vs. Estafa

1.

BP 22 RPC (Estafa)
1. endorser who acted with deceit knowing
1. endorser is not liable; that the check is worthless will be
criminally liable;

2.malum prohibitum;
2. malum in se;

3. it is the means to obtain the valuable

consideration from the payee (debt is not
3. Issuance of check is for value or on account
preexisting)

4. False pretenses or deceit and damage, or

4. Deceit and damage are not elements of the
at least intent to cause damage, are essential
crime; the gravamen of the offense is the issuance
and the false pretenses must be prior to or
of the check
simultaneous with the damage caused.

5. The drawer is given 5 days after receiving

5. given 3 days after receiving notice of
notice of dishonor within which to pay or make
dishonor;
arrangements for payment;

6. that there are no funds or no sufficient funds at

6. that there are no funds or there are
the time of issuance or at the time of presentment
insufficient funds at the time of issuance
if made within 90 days.