CrimNotes Exiled

Page 1 of 5

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR
CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

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 Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

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.

Under BP 22, the issuance of a worthless check either for account or for value is punishable.

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

To apply on account pre-existing obligation
For value the obligation is contracted at the time of the issuance of the check, meaning the obligation is incurred
or contracted at the time of the issuance of the check. Knowing 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 in full upon its presentment and
which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee 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 Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Ex: You incurred a loan with a bank worth 100,000 payable within 10 months. So each month, you are
obliged to pay. The bank will let you issue 10 post-dated checks equivalent to 10 months, worth 10,000. If
the checks you issued will bounce, that will constitute 1 case of BP 22. Until the 10
th
month will come, and
all the checks you issued bounced, you will have 10 cases of violation of BP 22. Every check that will
bounce will constitute 1 case of violation of BP 22.
Penalty 30 days imprisonment but not more than 1 year or a fine not more than double the
amount of the check
So in this case, you will be imprisoned for 30 days, or you will be fined 10,000 or 20,000 (not
more than double the amount of the check)
The penalty imposed depends upon the court, but in no case shall the fine exceed 200,000.
The court can impose only imprisonment, only fine, or it can impose both.

Ex: You issued a check, it was post-dated, August 31, 2014. When the date arrived, you called the bank and
issued a Stop-Order-Payment, telling the bank not to encash the check. So the check was not encashed,
and the check was not stamped with dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 2 of 5

Can you be held liable even if the check was not dishonored, no mark that it was dishonored due
to insufficiency of funds?
Yes, you can still be held liable. Because of the phrase or have been dishonored on the same
reason if the drawer, on any reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
If it were not because of your order to stop payment, the check would have been dishonored just
the same. So you cannot escape liability just by ordering a stop payment.

There are instances when the drawer/maker can issue a stop payment order.
Ex: You ordered something, and on the agreed date of delivery, it was not delivered. So you ordered the
bank to stop payment. That is valid stop payment order. It is invalid if without any reason, you ordered
stop payment order, and if it were not because of your stop payment order, the check would have been
dishonored. So you cannot escape from any liability by merely showing a stop payment order to the bank.

Elements:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check.
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.
3. That the person who makes or draws the check knows 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.
4. 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.

Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - 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 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.

3
rd
element: That the person who makes or draws the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds
or credit with the drawee bank

How to know if the drawer has the knowledge?
That is very difficult to prove, that is why the law creates presumption. Meaning the burden of proof is on the
offender.
When does the presumption of knowledge on the insufficiency of funds arises?
If the check is dishonored when presented within 90 days from issuance.

2 elements in the creation of knowledge:
1. The check must be presented within 90 days from issue (appearing on the date of the check)
Within 90 days, you are the payee of the check and you presented the check for payment.
2. When you presented the check, it was dishonored.

If these two are present, then there is a presumption that he knows that he has knowledge of the insufficiency of
his funds in the bank.

When the presumption already arises, it will now be easier for the prosecution to prove the crime of BP 22.
Because the prosecution now does not anymore need to present evidence to prove that the offender has
knowledge, because he is now presumed to have that knowledge.
The burden of evidence is now on the offender to prove that he does not know. If he cannot present rebuttal
evidence/controverting evidence, he will be convicted.
Ex: 90 days already lapsed, it is already on the 100
th
day that the holder of the check presented it for
payment, and it bounced.

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 3 of 5

Does it mean that the drawer does not have any liability at all under BP 22 because the check was not
presented within the 90-day period? No. Why?
Because according to the SC, the 90-day period is only necessary to create the presumption of the
knowledge on the insufficiency of funds.
The drawer could still be held criminally liable under BP 22 even if the check was presented beyond the
90-day period.
But the prosecution has to present evidence that the offender has knowledge on the insufficiency of
funds, because there is no more presumption.

What could be the possible evidence that can be presented in court by the prosecution to show that he has
knowledge on the insufficiency of funds?
Ex: Two days before the issuance of the check, the offender withdrew from his account.
So presumably, you have knowledge of the remaining funds in the bank. So this can now be used
as proof that he has knowledge regarding the insufficiency of his funds when he issued the check.

In Estafa, we made mention that the offender can pre-empt the filing of the Estafa case against him if within 3 days
from the receipt of the notice of dishonor, he would pay the entire amount.
The same mechanism is used in BP 22. In fact, the period given is even longer.

Under BP 22, section 2, the drawer/maker has 5 banking days after receipt of notice of dishonor to pay the entire amount
of the check. If he could do so, he will not have any criminal liability, that is a complete defense.

Unlike in Estafa where the offender has 3 days from receipt of the notice of dishonor.
Sometimes we can be misled by this since as what we have known, the crime is committed when the act was done,
just like in theft. If you took the thing, and you paid for it, you are still liable. In this case, you are not liable
criminally and civilly, both are extinguished.
Within 5 days, you made an arrangement with the bank with the full payment of the amount. What do you mean
by this?
Usually banks have preferred clients.
When one of these preferred clients issued a check and the latter knew that he has insufficient
funds in the bank, he called the bank manager to just encash the check he issued and he will later
on pay the amount, because he is still outside the Philippines and he has difficulty in depositing
the needed amount.
That is what we mean by making arrangement with the bank for the payment of the check
issued.

Very important:
In BP 22, the drawer has 5 banking days to pay the full amount of the check. He is given 5 banking days to
extinguish his civil and criminal obligation by paying the full amount of the check.
That is why according to our jurisprudence, giving of written notice of dishonor to the drawer is MANDATORY.
In any prosecution for violation of BP 22, the prosecution must be able to prove that the drawer/maker has
received a written notice of dishonor that the check issued by the drawer has been dishonored.

Section 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: 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.

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 4 of 5

Not with standing 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.

How should notice of dishonor be given?

1. Personal service
The person who served the notice of dishonor must be presented in court to testify that the notice of
dishonor that he delivered was actually received by the drawer/maker. Otherwise, if the notice of
dishonor was not actually received by the drawer/maker, the offender can be acquitted of the crime
charged.

2. Registered mail
If the notice of dishonor was delivered, was he authorized by the drawer to receive any communication?
Mere presentation of registry receipt and the registry return card will not be sufficient to convict the
accused. The prosecution must present proof that the notice of dishonor was actually received by the
drawer.

How can this be proved?
You can present the postman. Let the postman execute an affidavit that he was the one who
served, when was it received, where was it received, and who received it.
Because if the prosecution failed to prove that the notice of dishonor was actually received, the offender
shall be acquitted.

So that is how important the giving of notice of dishonor is.

Does that mean that the drawer does not have any liability whatsoever if the giving of the notice of
dishonor is not proved? The drawer shall only be civilly liable, but he does not incur any criminal liability.

You might ask why is the giving of the notice of dishonor very important for the SC?
Because this law gives the offender the chance, and the payment should be done within 5 days from the
receipt of the notice of dishonor. And the payment is very important because it will extinguish the
offenders criminal and civil liability. Now how can he pay if he cannot receive the notice of dishonor?

What about if the one who issued the check is a juridical person, a corporation for example?
Does the giving of the notice of dishonor to the corporation sufficient?
If a corporation issues the check, the officer who issued the check must be served with the
notice, he himself must be served with the notice of dishonor.
Notice to the corporation alone is not considered as notice to the issuing officer.
As what we discussed earlier, the drawer can still be held liable even if the check is presented beyond the 90-day
period.
For example, the check was presented, 1 or 2 years from the date of issue, can the drawer still be held liable?
Under the negotiable instruments law, the check must be presented at a reasonable time.
What is reasonable time? There is no specific definition of what is reasonable time. According to the SC,
reasonable time according to the businessmen is 6 months.
So even if the check already lapsed 90 days from the date of issue, but does not lapse the 6-month period or
180 days, you can still present the check, and if the same will bounce, you can still hold the drawer liable, but
there is no more presumption of the knowledge on the insufficiency of funds when it was issued.
The prosecution must now present evidence to prove that the drawer knew that at the time he issued the
check, he did not have sufficient funds.
Beyond the 6-month period, his liability is merely civil in nature.


CrimNotes Exiled

Page 5 of 5

In BP 22, we learned earlier that the penalty is either imprisonment or fine. But the SC has issued a circular
enjoining lower courts (first level courts) just to impose fine instead of imprisonment. But it does not mean that the
court cannot impose imprisonment, because the SC cannot change the law.
Under the law, under BP 22, the court has the option to impose either imprisonment, fine or both. But the SC just
encouraged the courts to impose fine. Unless the court finds compelling reasons to impose imprisonment (for
those who committed the crime repeatedly).
What is the reason why offenders are not imprisoned?
According to the SC, it is the same rationale with the probation and parole, why do you release the prisoner
when he was already convicted? To save the valuable human resources. Usually, the ones who issued checks
are businessmen.

There is an opinion, in the book of Reyes: if the check will not be presented within 90 days, the drawer will not be
anymore be held liable if presented after 90 days.
o It is not correct because there is already a decision of the SC in the case of People vs. Nagrampa, August 6,
2002. As what we have learned, the 90 day period is for the purpose of giving rise to the presumption of
knowledge on the part of the drawer, knowledge of insufficiency of funds.

Section 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or
understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.

Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. - Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability
for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision of this Act be declared unconstitutional, the remaining
provisions shall continue to be in force.

Section 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette.