Page 1 of 9

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22

Ac 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

Page 2 of 9

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.
What is the law that punishes bounced checks?
The Bouncing Checks Law, or Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, is a law that governs the criminal
liability arising from the issuance of bounced checks. The full title of BP 22: An Act Penalizing the
Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other
Purposes (see full text here). In certain instances, the same acts may also give rise to another
criminal liability for estafa under the Revised Penal Code (see discussion in part 4 below).
Whats the reason or rationale for BP 22?
BP 22 is intended to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Even
years ago, the approximate value of bouncing checks was about 200 million pesos per day. The
issuance of bouncing checks is a crime not only against property. The magnitude of the crime has
an adverse effect on the greater public interest. The stability and commercial value of checks as
currency substitutes will be seriously affected. This, of course, has serious repercussions in trade
and in banking communities.
Does BP 22 violate the Constitutional mandate that no person shall be imprisoned for debt?
It has been argued that BP 22 in reality punishes the non-payment of debt. However, while it is true
that no person can be imprisoned for debt, what BP 22 punishes is the act of issuing bad checks,

Page 3 of 9

and not the failure to pay a debt. Its not a bad debt law; its rather a bad check law. Its not
designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.
Does BP 22 impairs the freedom of people to enter into contracts?
The Constitution also guarantees the right to enter into contract. Each one should be responsible
for the contracts entered into. If you get into a bad bargain, if you get a bad check, then its your
fault for not making sure that the other person is trustworthy. Checks, however, are not simple
contracts between two persons. It is a commercial instrument which, in this modem day and age,
has become a convenient substitute for money. It is an integral part of the banking system.
Besides, what the law protects are lawful contracts.

CHECKS are issued all the time in todays business world. No business operates without the use
of checks.
Because of the prevalence in the use of checks in the business world, it is to be expected that
some, if not many, would bounce.
Thus the legislature created one of the most commonly used laws in the country, Batas Pambansa
Bldg. 22 (BP 22) or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law.

Section 1 of BP 22 explains the main thrust of the law. It provides that: 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
To explain, this law imposes criminal liability on the issuance of bouncing checks. In the words of
the Supreme Court: What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which the check was issued, nor the terms and conditions of its issuance. (Caras vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129900, 2 October 2001).
One must take note though that the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of the bouncing
check, and not the non-payment of a debt by the one who issued the check. As explained by the
Supreme Court:

Page 4 of 9

The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of
an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to
pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public
interest, the practice is proscribed by law.
The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
(Medalla v. Laxa, G.R. No. 193362, 18 January 2012).
The point then of punishing the issuance of bouncing checks is to safeguard the financial system. If
bouncing checks were allowed to happen without penal sanction, it is possible that this would
greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as
currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. (Caras, supra).
Thus, when you do business, you have to be very careful when you issue a check. If it bounces,
and subject to the proper elements and notices, you could already be brought to the Office of the
Prosecutor for criminal charges.

ELEMENTS OF A BOUNCING CHECK

the elements of a violation of Sec. 1 of B.P. 22.
The Supreme Court has held that the following are the elements for a bouncing check violation
under B.P. 22:
The elements of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 are:
(1) drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value;
(2) knowledge by the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he did not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon presentment;
and
(3) said 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. (Caras vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129900, 2 October 2001)
Thus, one has to prove three things for a violation of B.P. 22. First, one has to show and prove that
there was the drawing and issuance of a check to apply on account or for value.

Page 5 of 9

Second, that the one who issued, made or drew the check knew at the time of issue that there was
insufficient funds in the bank for the payment of the check upon its presentment.
Third, that the check is subsequently dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds, or would
have been dishonored if the bank was subjected to a stop payment order of the check by its
drawer, maker, or issuer.
The first and last elements are easy to prove because the mere existence of a bounced check is
sufficient evidence. It is the second element where most cases on B.P. 22 hinge on, as it is difficult
to prove that the one who issued the bouncing check knew there were insufficient funds in the bank
for payment.
As such, Section 2 of B.P. 22 provides as follows:
SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds -- The making, drawing and issuance of a
check payment of which is refused by the drawee bank 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. (Underscoring supplied).
Under Section 2, it is presumed that a check which is refused payment by the bank is evidence of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit. However, it is required that there is a notice of
dishonor made upon the one who issued the check. In other words, Section 2 provides that there
must be written notification of the dishonor made to the issuer of the check. The notice of dishonor
should then inform the issuer that he has five days to make good the amount of the check.
It must be noted that the notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing. A mere oral
notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check is not enough. (Bax vs. People, G.R.
No. 149858, 5 September 2007). From that then, one can determine the existence of the 2nd
element of a B.P. 22 violation.
Thus, once all the elements of B.P. 22 or bouncing checks are present, such as those explained
above, the issuer of the check can now be prosecuted under the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law before
the Office of the Prosecutor.
Once again, the reminder is clear: be careful when you issue your checks. Make sure your
checking account has enough money to cover the amounts of the checks. Otherwise, you may find
yourself facing a bouncing checks case.
***

Page 6 of 9

The opinions expressed herein are Atty. Kelvins own. You can reach Kelvin through his office at
stlvlawoffice@gmail.com
Some people still have this misplaced confidence in the deterrent effect of Batas Pambansa (BP)
Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law ). Here are some things a layman should know:
1. The issuer is not automatically liable simply because the check bounced. A check generally
bounces when dishonored upon presentment (reasons include, account closed, drawn against
insufficient funds or DAIF). However, it is indispensable that the issuer must be notified in
WRITING about the fact of dishonor, and he has 5 days from receipt to pay the value of the check
or make arrangements for the payment thereof. (Please see update on this matter at the Philippine
e-Legal Forum).
2. Filing fees are generally not required for criminal cases. For B.P. 22 cases, however, the
complainant is required to pay the filing fees (based on the value of the check/s and the damages
claimed, just like in civil cases) upon filing of the case in court.
3. One major deterrent against bouncing checks is the threat of a warrant of arrest being issued
once the criminal case is filed in court. This is no longer true. No warrant of arrest is issued unless
the accused fails to appear when required by the court.
4. Even if a criminal case under B.P. 22 is filed, the court cant issue a hold-departure order (HDO).
All violations of the Bouncing Checks Law, regardless of the amount involved, are filed only with
the municipal/metropolitan trial courts. These courts cannot issue an HDO.
5. Courts have the discretion of imposing: (a) imprisonment only; (b) fine only; OR (c) both. It is
entirely possible that only a fine, without imprisonment, is imposed.

Bouncing Check & BP 22

A common predicament faced by businessmen is violating the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 also
known as the Bouncing Checks Law. Evidently, businessmen issue checks as a matter of practice,
and sometimes when the due dates of these checks fall, either by inadvertence or unavailable
finances, the check bounces.
BP 22 punishes a person for issuing a worthless check. A check is obviously worthless when, at
the time it is encashed for payment, which must be within ninety days from issuance, it is
dishonored by the issuing bank because of insufficient funds, or even when the account against
which the check was drawn was already closed. In any of these cases, the issuer of the check
commits a violation of BP 22, and may be held liable for imprisonment of thirty days to one year or
a fine a double the value of the check or both at the discretion of the court. Moreover, the issuer of

Page 7 of 9

the check may also be liable for imprisonment, even if only a fine is imposed by the court, if the
issuer has no sufficient property to pay the fine imposed, in which case he or she shall be liable to
serve a prison term at the rate of one day for each eight pesos of the unpaid fine.
Another manner in which a person becomes liable under BP 22 is when the issuer orders his or her
bank to make a stop payment of the check without any valid reason and the check would have
been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had it not been for the stop payment order given by the
issuer.
It must also be remembered that prosecution under BP 22 is not a bar for prosecution for Estafa,
and the issuer of the check may be held liable for one or both crimes, singly or simultaneously
when the complaints are filed in separate courts.
But the issuer of the check is not left with remedies. Our Supreme Court has sanctioned numerous
defenses which have acquitted individuals charged with a violation of BP 22. 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.
A violation of BP 22 is not really a wrong in itself or involves wrongful or immoral conduct. Since
committing a violation of BP 22 is not an inherently wrong act, the Supreme Court has, in
numerous cases, merely imposed a penalty of fine, understanding the nature of the offense and
the problems that every businessman encounters.

BOUN CING CHECKS (B.P. 22)

By: Atty.Fred | July 20, 2006 in Corporate and Investments, Criminal Law, Litigation

Page 8 of 9

Some people still have confidence, which confidence may be regarded as misplaced by others, in
the deterrent effect of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law (full
text here). Here are some things a layman should know:
1. Filing fees are generally not required for criminal cases. For B.P. 22 cases, however, the
complainant is required to pay the filing fee (based on the value of the check/s and the damages
claimed, just like in civil cases) upon filing of the case in court.
2. One major deterrent against the issuance of bouncing checks is the threat of a warrant of arrest
being issued once the criminal case is filed in court. This is no longer true. No warrant of arrest is
issued unless the accused fails to appear when required by the court.
3. Even if a criminal case under B.P. 22 is filed, the court cannot issue a hold-departure order. All
violations of the Bouncing Checks Law, regardless of the amount involved, are filed only with the
municipal/metropolitan trial courts. These courts cannot issue a hold-departure order.
4. Courts have the discretion of imposing: (a) imprisonment only; (b) fine only; OR (c) both. It is
entirely possible that only a fine, without imprisonment, will be imposed.
5. The issuer is not automatically liable simply because the check bounced. A check
generally bounces when dishonored upon presentment (reasons include: account closed,
drawn against insufficient funds or DAIF). However, it is indispensable that the issuer must be
notified in WRITING about the fact of dishonor, and he has five (5) days from receipt of the written
notice within which to pay the value of the check or make arrangements for the payment thereof.
This is based on the 1999 decision of the Supreme Court in King vs. People of the
Philippines (G.R. No. 131540).
Recently, the SC appears to have relaxed this ruling in the 2005 case of Yulo vs. People of the
Philippines (G.R. 142762). In this case, the SC reiterated the elements or requisites of the offense
penalized by BP 22:
(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 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
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment.
It is immediately clear that the written notice is not an element of the crime. In fact, in
the Yulocase, the High Tribunal rejected the argument of the accused regarding the absence of a
written notice, thus:
We likewise find no reason to sustain petitioners contention that she was not given any notice
of dishonor. Myrna had no reason to be suspicious of petitioner. It will be recalled that Josefina

Page 9 of 9

Dimalanta assured Myrna that petitioner is her best friend and a good payer.
Consequently, when the checks bounced, Myrna would naturally turn to Josefina for help. We note
that Josefina refused to give Myrna petitioners address but promised to inform petitioner
about the dishonored checks.
This ruling, however, did not categorically overturn the doctrine enunciated in the earlier Kingcase.
In other words, at this stage, both sides could logically argue either way.
How to prevent, prosecute & collect bouncing checks
(The Philippine Star) | Updated April 19, 2013 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines - A substantial number of collection cases filed in the office of the prosecutor
or court using BP 22 and /or estafa are dismissed due to legal technicalities. You should never be a
victim of bouncing checks again if you know the right way to prevent it, prosecute offenders, and
collect debts effectively. Many lawyers fail to defend their clients on this effectively because they
only learn this subject matter as a two to three hour lecture in law school.
To arm yourselves with the full knowledge of the law against bouncing checks, the Center for
Global Best Practices is launching a one-day pioneering seminar entitled, How to Prevent,
Prosecute and Collect Bouncing Checks: Best Practices Guide on the Use of BP 22 and Estafa
and Other Effective Collection Methods on May 8 at The Peninsula Manila, Makati City,
Philippines.
In this one-day comprehensive seminar, commercial and criminal law experts will teach you all the
relevant regulations governing bouncing checks, how to file a court case properly against the
offenders, surefire ways to secure criminal conviction, as well as how to enforce court decisions
and recover your money with the right out-of the-box collection strategies.
For details call Manila lines: (+632) 556-8968 or 69; telefax (+632) 842-7148 or 59; Cebu lines:
(+632-512-3106 or 07; Baguio: (+632) 423-5148. You may also check details and all other
upcoming best practices seminars at www.cgbp.org.
This special seminar will feature lawyer Marlo B. Campanilla who has authored six criminal law
books and is presently the presiding judge of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 83 in Caloocan City.
He is also a bar review lecturer in six law centers including the University of the Philippines.