BP 22

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.
22, April 03,

1979
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR

DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR
CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
also known as the
Bouncing Checks Law.
BP 22 is a law that specifically deals
with the criminal offense of issuing
bouncing checks. Under this law, any
person who issues a check that is
subsequently dishonored upon
presentation due to insufficient funds,
closed account, or other valid reasons,
may be held liable for violating BP 22.
The law serves as a deterrent against
fraudulent practices involving checks
and promotes financial accountability.
The essential elements of the crime of BP 22 are:
a. the accused is the issuer who signed the dishonored check and the check is
issued for account or for value;
b. the accused has knowledge at the time he issued the check that the bank account
against which the check is issued has insufficient funds in or credit with the bank
for the payment of the check when presented for payment; and
c. the drawee bank dishonors the check because of insufficiency of funds, or it

would have dishonored the check for the same reason if the issuer did not order the
bank to stop payment for no valid reason
The law presumes that the issuer knew of the
insufficiency of his funds if the check is
dishonored within 90 days from the date of the
check. This presumption is overcome only if the
issuer pays or makes arrangements for payment of
the full amount of the check within five banking
days after receiving a notice of its dishonor .
Duty of drawee; rules of evidence.
PENALTY
• 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 Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Administrative Circular Nos. 12-2000 and 13-01 on the
imposition of a fine only, and not imprisonment, for
violations of BP 22.
The second, decisions of the courts holding that the

prosecution in BP 22 must establish that a written notice
of dishonor was actually received by the person who
issued the dishonored check.
The Supreme Court in its Administrative Circular No.
12-2000 declared that, in imposing the penalty for
violations of BP 22, courts should follow the policy 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 that regard, in lieu of
imprisonment, a fine equal to double
the amount of the check involved has
been deemed an appropriate penalty
for a violation of BP 22
Administrative Circular No. 13-01, the
Supreme Court clarified that it did not intend
to remove the penalty of imprisonment, but
that courts should reserve the imposition of
imprisonment as a penalty for serious cases
when the violation of BP 22 was committed
in such a way it would negatively affect the
social order
Possible defenses in an indictment include
1) payment of the value of the dishonored check within five banking days
from receipt of the notice of dishonor;
2) payment of the value of the check before filing of the criminal case in
court;
3) failure to serve a written notice of dishonor of the check to the issuer;
4) novation or change in the underlying obligation of the parties before the
filing of the criminal case in court;
5) a stop payment order pursuant to a valid reason such as non-delivery of
goods or services; and
6) knowledge by the payee that the check was not supported by sufficient
funds when the issuer issued the check.
P
rosecution under BP 22 is not a bar fo
r prosecution for
Estafa
, and the issuer of the check may be h
eld liable for one or both crimes, singl
y or simultaneously when the complai
nts are filed
in separate courts.
Even an “accommodation party” is liable under BP 22. An accommodation party is
one who has signed the check without receiving value in exchange, and who issues
the check for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. He is still liable
even though the holder of the check knew him to be only an accommodation party.
In case a check is issued in behalf of a corporation or other legal entity, the person
who actually signed the bounced check is liable.
It must also be noted that a person liable for BP 22 may at the same time be liable
for estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code.
• A. a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the

time the check is issued;
• B. lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check;
C. damage to the payee thereof. It is the deceit or fraud attendant to the issuance
of the check which is punished.
D. Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the
check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three days
from receipt of the notice of dishonor. The key issue is whether the complainant
would have parted with his money, property or any other object of the transaction
were it not for the issuance of the check, which turns out to be unfunded.

BP 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BP 22

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.

22, April 03,

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR

c. the drawee bank dishonors the check because of insufficiency of funds, or it

The second, decisions of the courts holding that the

• A. a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the

You might also like