38.3 Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)

Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)

The Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) penalizes the issuance of worthless checks to protect the integrity of checks as substitutes for money. This section covers the elements of the offense, the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds, the drawer's duty and the five-banking-day period, penalties, and the comparison with estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code.

---

1. Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22)

Public Policy and Nature of the Offense

Enacted to protect commercial transactions and the stability of the banking system, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) penalizes the issuance of worthless checks. Checks substitute for money in the modern economy; bouncing checks impair the financial bloodstream.

Malum Prohibitum Doctrine: BP 22 is a special penal law. The offense is malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited by statute). Criminal intent, malice, good faith, lack of deceit, or lack of financial damage to the payee are completely immaterial. The mere voluntary act of issuing a check that is subsequently dishonored constitutes the offense.

Two Distinct Modes of Violating BP 22

Under Section 1 of BP 22, the crime is committed in either of two ways:

1. Issuance with Knowledge of Insufficiency (Section 1, Paragraph 1): Making, drawing, and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the maker/drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment in full upon presentment, which is subsequently dishonored upon presentment.
2. Failure to Maintain Sufficient Funds (Section 1, Paragraph 2): Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when making/drawing the check, but failing to keep sufficient funds or maintain credit to cover the full amount if presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, for which reason it is dishonored upon presentment.

The Three Essential Elements of the Crime

To secure a conviction under Section 1, paragraph 1 of BP 22, the prosecution must establish three concurrent elements:

1. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value;
2. The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer at the time of issue that they have insufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon presentment; and
3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor that would have resulted had not the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment without valid cause.

The Statutory Prima Facie Presumption of Knowledge

Because actual mental knowledge is difficult to prove directly, Section 2 of BP 22 creates a rebuttable statutory presumption of knowledge of insufficiency:

$$\begin{aligned} \text{Presentment within 90 Days} &+ \text{Dishonor by Bank} + \text{Written Notice of Dishonor Received} \\ &+ \text{Failure to Pay within 5 Banking Days} \longrightarrow \mathbf{\text{Prima Facie Presumption of Knowledge}} \end{aligned}$$

                                The 4 Requisites of the Presumption
                                                 │
         ┌───────────────────────────────┬───────┴───────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
         ▼                               ▼                               ▼                               ▼
Presentment in 90 Days               Dishonor                     Written Notice                  5-Day Banking Cure
Check presented to drawee       Drawee bank refuses           Formal WRITTEN notice of       Maker fails to pay in full
bank within 90 days from date   payment for insufficient funds dishonor actually received     within 5 banking days

1. Presentment within 90 Days: The check must be presented to the drawee bank within ninety (90) days from the date indicated on the check;
2. Dishonor: The check is dishonored by the drawee bank (marked DAIF - Drawn Against Insufficient Funds, DAUD - Drawn Against Uncollected Deposits, or Account Closed);
3. Actual Receipt of Written Notice of Dishonor: The maker/drawer must receive a formal written notice of dishonor (oral or telephonic notice is void);
4. Lapse of Five (5) Banking Days: The maker/drawer fails to pay the full face value of the check, or fails to make arrangements for payment in full with the drawee bank, within five (5) banking days after receiving said written notice.

Established Defenses under BP 22

1. Lack of Written Notice of Dishonor (Bautista v. Court of Appeals)

Philippine jurisprudence strictly mandates that the notice of dishonor must be in writing.

• A verbal or telephonic notice of dishonor is completely ineffective to trigger the prima facie presumption of knowledge.
• If sent by registered mail, the prosecution must present not only the registry receipt and return card, but also the testimony of the postman or person who delivered it, or an authentic certificate from the post office confirming actual receipt by the accused or an authorized agent.

2. Full Payment within the Five (5) Banking-Day Cure Window

If the maker pays the holder the full face amount of the check, or deposits sufficient funds with the bank to cover the check within five (5) banking days from actual receipt of the written notice of dishonor, the statutory presumption of knowledge is destroyed, completely extinguishing criminal liability under BP 22.

3. Presentment Beyond Ninety (90) Days

If the payee presents the check to the drawee bank after the lapse of ninety (90) days from the check date, the statutory presumption of knowledge under Section 2 does not arise.

• To convict the drawer, the prosecution must prove actual knowledge of insufficiency through independent, direct evidence (which is virtually impossible in ordinary commercial litigation).
• However, late presentment discharges only criminal liability under the presumption; the civil obligation to pay the underlying debt remains fully enforceable.

4. Valid Stop Payment Order

If the maker ordered the drawee bank to stop payment for a lawful cause (e.g., total failure of consideration, non-delivery of purchased goods, stolen check), the maker is not criminally liable under BP 22.

5. Corporate Officers' Defense

When a check is drawn by a corporation, the officer who signed the check in behalf of the corporation is criminally liable. However, the signing officer cannot be convicted if they resigned prior to issuance, did not sign the check, or were not served with a personal written notice of dishonor.

Comparative Matrix: BP 22 vs. Estafa by Bouncing Check (Art. 315, par. 2(d) RPC)

---

2. Worked Problem: BP 22 90-Day Presentment and 5-Banking-Day Cure Window

Scenario: On March 1, 2026, Victor issued a check for PHP 300,000 postdated to April 15, 2026, payable to Walter in satisfaction of a previous loan.

• Walter deposited the check with his bank on June 20, 2026. The drawee bank dishonored the check on June 22, 2026, stamped "DAIF" (Drawn Against Insufficient Funds).
• Walter personally telephoned Victor on June 23, 2026, demanding payment. Victor promised to pay but failed to do so.
• On July 2, 2026, Walter personally served a formal Written Demand Letter and Notice of Dishonor upon Victor, which Victor signed and acknowledged on the same day (Thursday).
• Victor paid Walter the full amount of PHP 300,000 on July 9, 2026 (the following Thursday). Is Victor criminally liable under BP 22?

Chronological Statutory Analysis:

1. 90-Day Presentment Test:
   • Check Date: April 15, 2026.
   • Date of Presentment: June 20, 2026.
   • Elapsed time: 66 calendar days. Because 66 days is less than 90 days, the check was timely presented within the statutory period.
2. Notice of Dishonor Form:
   • Walter's telephone call on June 23 was verbal; it has zero legal effect under BP 22.
   • The written notice of dishonor was actually received by Victor on July 2, 2026 (Thursday).
3. Five (5) Banking-Day Cure Period Computation:
   • Receipt Date: July 2, 2026 (Thursday) — Excluded under Rule of Statutory Construction.
   • Day 1: July 3 (Friday)
   • Saturday (July 4) and Sunday (July 5) are non-banking days (excluded).
   • Day 2: July 6 (Monday)
   • Day 3: July 7 (Tuesday)
   • Day 4: July 8 (Wednesday)
   • Day 5: July 9, 2026 (Thursday) — The last day of the cure period.
4. Conclusion: Because Victor paid the full face amount of PHP 300,000 on July 9, 2026, he fully settled the check on the 5th banking day. The prima facie presumption of knowledge under Section 2 is completely negated. Victor is not criminally liable under BP 22.