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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Approved: April 3, 1979.

Q; May an endorser who passes a bad check may be held liable under BP 22?

A: Yes. An endorser who passes a bad check may be held liable under BP 22, even though the presumption of knowledge does not
apply to him, if there is evidence that at the time of endorsement, he was aware of the insufficiency of funds. It is evident from the
foregoing deliberations that the presumption in Sec. 2 was intended to facilitate proof of knowledge and not to foreclose admissibility
of other evidence that may also prove such knowledge. Thus, the only consequence of the failure to present the check for payment
within ninety (90) days from the date stated is that there arises no prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
But the prosecution may still prove such knowledge through other evidence. Whether such evidence is sufficient to sustain probable
cause to file the information is addressed to the sound discretion of the City Prosecutor and is a matter not controllable by certiorari.
Certainly, petitioner is not left in a lurch as the prosecution must prove knowledge without the benefit of the presumption, and she
may present whatever defenses are available to her in the course of the trial. (Bautista vs. CA G.R. No. 143375. July 6, 2001)

Q: Is fact that the check issued was subsequently dishonored is enough to hold the person liable for BP 22?

A:No. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or
she failed, within five banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make
arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law cannot prosper. (Danao vs. CA G.R. No. 122353. June 6, 2001)

Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law is a criminal decree. It essentially penalizes the act of
making and issuing a worthless check. To be held criminally liable, the existence of the following elements must be proven: (1) The
making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that
at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; and (3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop payment.

A person accused of a criminal offense such as the violation of BP 22 may be exonerated from criminal responsibility if, after
trial, it was clearly shown that he did not commit the offense charged or there is reasonable doubt to believe that he committed the
same.

Notwithstanding, he may still be held civilly liable such as when his criminal exoneration is only based on reasonable doubt
and there was still sufficient evidence presented and appreciated by the court insofar as his civil responsibility is concerned. Our
Supreme Court has clearly explained:

“x x x The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case
is based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. If the accused, however, is not found to be criminally
liable, it does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it the extinction of the civil action. This rule more specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of
the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted. x x x

It can, therefore, be concluded that if the judgment is conviction of the accused, then the necessary penalties and civil
liabilities arising from the offense or crime shall be imposed. On the contrary, if the judgment is of acquittal, then the imposition of
the civil liability will depend on whether or not the act or omission from which it might arise exists.

A person acquitted of a criminal charge, however, is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required in
criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence).
In order to be completely free from civil liability, a person’s acquittal must be based on the fact he did not commit the offense. If the
acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit
the act complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense charged. x x x” (Nissan Gallery-Ortigas vs.
Felipe, G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza; emphasis supplied).

Batas Pambansa Blg 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, is enacted for the protection of the public, most especially the
businessmen, who issue and receive checks as a matter of practice. In short, BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of a worthless check.

A check is worthless when at the time of its presentment to the bank for encashment, usually within 90 days from its issuance,
it is dishonored by the bank because of insufficient funds, or because the account against which the check was drawn is already closed.
So generally, there are two offenses punished under BP 22, namely: 1)the making or drawing and issuance of a check when at the time
of its issuance the issuer knows that he does not have sufficient funds, and 2)failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount
of the check.

Making, Drawing or Issuance of a check when at the time of its issue, issuer knows that he does not have sufficient funds

In the first offense punishable under BP 22, it should be noted that what really gives rise to the violation is not the making,
drawing, issuance, or the dishonor if the check, but the failure of the issuer to make good the check within five (5) banking days from
the time that he has received the Notice of Dishonor and Demand for Payment.

For instance John issued a check worth P10,000.00 to Jenny. At the time he issued the check, he knew that he does not have
P10,000.00 with the bank. If Jenny presents the check to the bank for encashment, and it was dishonored, Jenny should give a Notice
of Dishonor and a demand for payment to John; John’s obligation is to pay Jenny P10,000.00 within 5 banking days from the time he
receives the Notice of Dishonor, otherwise, he may be liable for violation of BP 22.

According to the case of Lina Lim lao vs. People, GR No. 119178, June 20, 1997, if the issuer was able to make full payment of the
amount which appears on the check within 5 days from his receipt of notice of dishonor, he can raise such defense, and a criminal
action against him is already disallowed.

Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds

If the bank refuses to pay the check because of insufficiency of funds when it is presented within 90 days from the date of
the check, it shall be used as an evidence that the issuer knows that he has insufficient funds, unless he pays the holder the amount
of the check or makes arrangements for its payment within 5 banking days after he received a notice that the check was dishonored.

Failing to keep Sufficient Funds to Cover Full Amount of the Check

In the second offense under BP 22, the issuer has sufficient funds with the bank at the time he issues the check. What makes
him liable is his failure to keep sufficient funds with the bank within a reasonable time from the time he issues the check.

In banking practice, the reasonable time is six (6) months or 180 days, which is usually the time when a check becomes stale.

ESTAFA VERSUS BP 22

One thing in common between the estafa and BP 22 is that they can be committed by issuance of bouncing checks. There is
only a thin line that distinguishes one from the other, and for most people it is a little difficult to determine.

Estafa by issuance of bouncing checks

One manner of committing estafa is by employment of deceit, deception may be in the form of issuance of a check in payment
of an obligation when the issuer knew that he had no funds or that his funds are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
 In this situation, the issuance of the check should be before or instantaneous with a transaction. If however, the check was
issued in payment of an already existing obligation, then there really is no estafa but only a civil liability.

If the drawer of the check was not able to pay or make arrangements for payment of the check within three (3) days from
the time he receives a notice of dishonor, then it is a prima facie evidence that he employed deceit in the issuance of the check.

A good example would be the case of People of the Philippines vs. Virginia Baby P. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31,
2011. In this case, accused Virginia Montaner drew and issued ten postdated checks in exchange for P50,000.00 from Reynaldo Solis.
However, when Solis presented the checks to Prudential Bank, they were dishonored because the account was already closed. So,
Reynaldo sent a demand letter to Virginia, however Virgina still did not make payment. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that
Virginia was liable for estafa.

It is evident that the issuance of the postdated check was done at the same time that the P50,000.00 cash was given to the
issuer; this was the simultaneous transaction which led to the issuance of the check. Then, when Solis demanded payment from
Virginia, the latter did not comply; this was a prima facie evidence that Virginia was in bad faith when she issued the check. With all
the elements of estafa present, then the issuer should be held liable.

BP 22

In BP 22, there is no need that the issuance of a check be prior to or simultaneous with a transaction, it is enough that a
worthless check was issued on account or for value, with the issuer aware that he has no funds with the bank or his funds are
insufficient to pay the value of the check.

In estafa, three days are given for the offender to pay or make arrangements for payment of the check, in BP 22, the drawer is given
five (5) days after receiving notice of dishonor within which to pay or make arrangements for payment.

Estafa and BP 22

It should be noted that when one is charged with violation of BP 22, he can still be charged with any offense punishable under
the Revised Penal Code. So, it is possible that one can be liable for both offenses with just one act of issuing a check.