BP 22 - 12 7 2022

BOUNCING CHECKS L AW
B ATA S PA M B A N S A 2 2 ( B P
22)
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 – BOUNCING
CHECKS
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR

DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
RATIONALE OF THE LAW
• The Government encourages people to deposit their money

in banking institutions, and discourages private hoarding to help
the proper circulation of money in the country, and aid in
economic development. It will aid in the efficiency of the banking
system as the money saved will be properly utilized to authorize
loans. It could also decrease government costs. In relation to this,
the government must secure the confidentiality of citizens’
money. Thus, the provision enacted.
SEC. 1 OF BP 22
• 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
P200,000.00 , or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion
of the court.
SEC. 1 OF BP 22
• 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.
CASE
• John, thinking that he has enough funds in his account, issued a check to
the Amber in payment for the items he purchased from the latter. The
check, however bounced but the seller failed to notify the buyer of such
fact. Will the buyer be held criminally liable under BP 22?
• No, the buyer cannot be held criminally liable under BP 22.

ELEMENTS TO BE LIABLE FOR BOUNCING
CHECKS LAWS (BP22)
• 1. A check must be issued;
• 2. The issuer must know that there were no sufficient funds at the time
when the check was issued;
• 3. The check must be dishonored;
• 4. The issuer must be notified in writing of the fact of dishonor – Notice of

Dishonor.
ELEMENTS . . .
MEMORY AID!!! - IKDN
1. ISSUANCE
2. KNOWLEDGE
3. DISHONORED
4. NOTIFIED
• Going back to the previous case, John (buyer) was unaware that the
check which he issued had no sufficient funds and that Amber (seller)
failed to notify the buyer of the fact that such check was dishonored.
• Hence, John cannot be held criminally liable under BP 22.
• Missing Element? 4th - Notification

EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF
INSUFFICIENT FUNDS (NUMBER 2
ELEMENT)
• Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making,
drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
(BANK) 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.
CASE
A 19 year old Crypto Billionaire named SAM BANKMAN-FRIED (SBF) who owns FTX, issued a
Metrobank check in favor of a painter for a portrait painting of him which will be displayed in their
Home in the amount of Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos Only (P800,000). The check was dated for 16
December 2022.
On 16 April 2022, the painter presented the check in Metrobank but the bank dishonored the check
for insufficient funds. Thus, the check has bounced.
The artist quickly sent a Notice of Dishonor to the Billionaire in his address giving him 5 banking days
to pay but did not respond or made arrangements of payment.
Is SBF of FTX Crypto liable for BP 22?

CASE
No. Sam Bankman-Fried is not liable for BP22. The second element of the crime
of BP22 is not present because the artist encashed the check more than 90 days
from the issuance.
As such, no presumption of knowledge of insufficiency by the issuer herein

which is an element of BP22. Thus, the issuer cannot be liable.
WHO ELSE IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
• INDIVIDUAL - Criminal liability under BP 22 shall also accrue 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.
• CORPORATION - and other juridical entity, criminal liability falls upon

the officer/s who signed the check.
DUTY OF THE DRAWER
• Sec. 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: DAIF, Closed Account
• 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.
• Notwithstanding 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.
PENALTY FOR BP 22
• A. Imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year; OR
• B. Fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the
check which fine shall in no case exceed ₱200,000; OR
• C. BOTH such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

CASE
Cersei received a demand letter from her creditor to pay the amount
corresponding to the postdated checks she issued, which were dishonored because
of “insufficient funds”. Before receipt of the demand letter, she was willing to settle
her obligations but she and her creditor had a misunderstanding regarding the
manner of payment of the debt. In the end, the creditor said that she would just see
Cersei in court as she did not agree to any settlement anymore.
Later on, Cersei received a demand letter asking her to pay all her debts otherwise
the creditor will file a case for estafa and threatens her of imprisonment for 20
years. Cersei disregarded this because she believes that the case will be dismissed
knowing that no person can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt (Section 20,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution thereof that “no person shall be imprisoned for
debt or non-payment of poll tax”)
ANSWER
• Although a person who is indebted cannot be punished by imprisonment, he
may nevertheless be sued civilly for collection of sum of money, wherein the
court shall order payment of debt. However, when the act of borrowing of
money is accompanied with an act which is punishable by law with
imprisonment or penalty, the debtor may be criminally liable not for the non-
payment of debt but for the commission of the crime. As in Cersei’s case,
borrowing, alone, of money will not make her criminally liable. But her issuance
of postdated checks which were later dishonored for “insufficiency of funds”
constitutes a crime of either violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) or
Estafa.
• Source: https://www.manilatimes.net/2013/11/22/legal-advice/dearpao/bounced-checks-constitute-crime-of-estafa/54865
B.P. 22 VS ESTAFA
• Under the Revised Penal Code, the following elements are

necessary to hold a person guilty of Estafa:
– (1) Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued
– (2) Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
– (3) Damage to the payee thereof.
WHERE DOES THE DISPARITY LIE?
• It is Estafa when, among others, you issue an unfunded check with fraudulent
intent in consideration of something of value you received. Here intent is
material and good faith may be used as a defense.
• It is a case for Violation of BP 22 when you issue an unfunded check whether

or not it is for an obligation you contracted prior to the issuance of the check
or not. Simply put, you are liable for BP 22 whether you issue a check for a
present or a past obligation.
B.P. 22 VS ESTAFA CASE
On 7 December 2022, Agatha who is a BSA student bought books from REX Bookstore ready
for the entire semester in the amount of P20,000.
On the following day, when REX tried to encash the check, it was dishonored because the
account was closed for more than two years already.
REX sent a Notice of Dishonor and Agatha made no arrangements for payment within 5 calendar
days.
Because she was busy studying for their exams, she saw the notice on the 7th day and she swiftly
informed REX that she issued a check the wrong check because she used her old check book to
which she admitted that the account was closed.
Is Agatha liable for Estafa?

B.P. 22 VS ESTAFA CASE
On 7 December 2022, Agatha who is a BSA student bought books from REX Bookstore ready
for the entire semester in the amount of P20,000.
On the following day, when REX tried to encash the check, it was dishonored because the
account was closed for more than two years already.
REX sent a Notice of Dishonor and Agatha made no arrangements for payment within 5 calendar
days.
Because she was busy studying for their exams, she saw the notice on the 7th day and she swiftly
informed REX that she issued a check the wrong check because she used her old check book to
which she admitted that the account was closed.
Is Agatha liable for BP22?

B.P. 22 VS ESTAFA
GOOD FAITH IS NOT A DEFENSE IN B.P. 22.
MERE ISSUANCE OF A WORTHLESS CHECK IS A

CRIME OF B.P. 22
THERE MUST BE MALICE IN ISSUANCE OF CHECK

TO BE LIABLE FOR ESTAFA
ANSWER
ESTAFA – NOT LIABLE.
Good Faith is a defense in the case of Estafa. Here, she admitted that she made a mistake in issuing the
check. Hence, good faith is present in this case.
B.P. 22 – LIABLE
Good Faith is a not defense in the case of BP22, mere issuance of a worthless check, even though it is
in good faith will make the issuer liable to such law. Here, she admitted that she made a mistake in
issuing the check but it is of no bearing in this case because good faith is not a defense. Hence, Agatha
is liable for BP22.

BP 22 - 12 7 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BP 22 - 12 7 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BP 22 - 12 7 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOUNCING CHECKS L AW

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR

• The Government encourages people to deposit their money

• Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or

• No, the buyer cannot be held criminally liable under BP 22.

• 1. A check must be issued;

• 3. The check must be dishonored;

• 4. The issuer must be notified in writing of the fact of dishonor – Notice of

MEMORY AID!!! - IKDN

• Hence, John cannot be held criminally liable under BP 22.

• Missing Element? 4th - Notification

Is SBF of FTX Crypto liable for BP 22?

As such, no presumption of knowledge of insufficiency by the issuer herein

• INDIVIDUAL - Criminal liability under BP 22 shall also accrue upon

• CORPORATION - and other juridical entity, criminal liability falls upon

• C. BOTH such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

• Under the Revised Penal Code, the following elements are

• It is a case for Violation of BP 22 when you issue an unfunded check whether

Is Agatha liable for Estafa?

Is Agatha liable for BP22?

GOOD FAITH IS NOT A DEFENSE IN B.P. 22.

MERE ISSUANCE OF A WORTHLESS CHECK IS A

THERE MUST BE MALICE IN ISSUANCE OF CHECK

ESTAFA – NOT LIABLE.

You might also like