BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.

22

THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW

ELEMENTS
• The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account
or for value;
• The knowledge of the issuer that at the time of issue he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and
• The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank due to
insufficiency of funds or the check would have been dishonored for
the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment
PUNISHMENT
• imprisonment of not less than 30 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 (200,000),

• or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court

same penalty
• 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.
check drawn by a corporation, company or
entity

• person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such

drawer shall be liable
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
• 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
Duty of drawee
• 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
Duty of drawee
• 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
rules of evidence
• 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
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.
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.
AMENDMENTS
• amendment of BP Blg. 129 by Republic Act (RA) 7691 (An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court), the
Metropolitan Trial Court assumes exclusive jurisdiction over BP 22
cases (prior to the amendment- Regional Trial Court)
• Vaca, et al. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998]
• Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines [G. R. No. 130038, 18 September
2000]

• Administrative Circular 12-2000 issued on November 21, 2000- the SC

required all courts and judges concerned to take note of the policy
rendered in those two cases, particularly on the matter of the
imposition of penalties, making it appear that violation of BP 22
would only merit fines.
 EDUARDO R. VACA and FERNANDO
NIETO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

• G.R. No. 131714. November 16, 1998

FACTS

• Petitioner Eduardo R. Vaca is the president and owner of Ervine

International, Inc. (Ervine), which is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of refrigeration equipment, while his son-in-law, petitioner
Fernando Nieto, is the firms purchasing manager. On March 10, 1988,
petitioners issued a check for P10,000.00 to the General Agency for
Reconnaissance, Detection, and Security, Inc. (GARDS) in partial
payment of the security services rendered by GARDS to Ervine. The
check was drawn on the China Banking Corporation (CBC). When
deposited in the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIBank)
branch at Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong, the check was dishonored
for insufficiency of funds.
• On March 29, 1988, GARDS wrote Ervine a letter in which it
demanded payment in cash of the amount of the check within seven
days from notice. The letter was received by Ervine on the same day,
but petitioners did not pay within the time given.
• On April 13, 1988, petitioners issued a check for P19,860.16 to
GARDS. The check was drawn on the Associated Bank. The voucher
accompanying it stated that the check was to replace the dishonored
check, the P9,860.16 balance being partial payment for Ervines
outstanding account. The check and the voucher were received by a
GARDS messenger, Nolan C. Pena, on April 15, 1988, but GARDS did
not return the dishonored check.
• A complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed against petitioners. After
trial, petitioners were found guilty of the charge and each was
sentenced to suffer one (1) year imprisonment and to pay a fine
of P10,000.00 and the costs.
ISSUES

• Whether the drawers had knowledge of insufficient funds in issuing

the check

• Whether the absence of damages incurred by the payee absolves the

drawers from liability
HELD
• On the first issue
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 five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
HELD
• On the second issue
Even if the payee suffered no damage as a result of the issuance
of the bouncing check, the damage to the integrity of the banking
system cannot be denied. Damage to the payee is not an element of
the crime punished in B.P. Blg. 22.
• Note: In this case, the Court recognized the contribution of Filipino
entrepreneurs to the national economy; and that to serve the ends of
criminal justice, instead of the one year imprisonment, a fine of
double the amount of the check involved was imposed as penalty.
This was made to redeem valuable human material and prevent
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness
with due regard to the protection of the social order (philosophy
underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law).
A.M. 00-11-01-SC
• SC clarified that when A.M. 12-2000 was issued, it was not meant to
remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a
rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for
in BP 22.
• Judges are not directed to impose fine only as penalty for BP 22,
instead they are directed to exercise their sound discretion, and
taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, to
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve
the interests of justice or whether non-imposition of imprisonment
would be contrary to the imperatives of justice
• In April 2003 in order to facilitate an expeditious and inexpensive
determination of BP 22 cases, the SC had included the violation of BP
22 as one of the cases governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure.