BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.

22: ANNOTATED
This is an annotation of Batas Pambansa Blg. ("BP") 22 -- "An Act Penalizing the
Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and
for Other Purposes"
BP 22, often referred to as the "Bouncing Checks Law," governs the criminal liability
arising from the issuance of bounced checks. 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. To determine the reasons for which checks are
issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will 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 vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129900, 2 October 2001)
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.

Annotation:
Section 1 of the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes two distinct acts (Bautista vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, 6 July 2001):

(1) Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value,
knowing at the time of issuethat the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank.
(2) Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank 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 90 days from the date appearing thereon, for which
reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank. In the first paragraph, the drawer
knows that he does not have sufficient funds to cover the check at the time of its
issuance, while in the second paragraph, the drawer has sufficient funds at the time
of issuance but fails to keep sufficient funds or maintain credit within ninety (90)
days from the date appearing on the check. In both instances, the offense is
consummated by the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or credit. The
check involved in the first offense is worthless at the time of issuance since the
drawer had neither sufficient funds in nor credit with the drawee bank at the time,
while that involved in the second offense is good when issued as drawer had
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when issued. Under the first
offense, the 90-day presentment period is not expressly provided, while such
period is an express element of the second offense.
Elements: General
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, supra.)
The second requisite or element is discussed in Section 2 below, while the third
requisite is discused in Section 3.

Applicable penalties
In A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC (2001), the Supreme Court clarified that the earlier circular,
Administrative Circular 12-2000, did not remove imprisonment as an alternative
penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The Judges may, "in the exercise of sound

discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of
justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be
contrary to the imperatives of justice." Also, "[s]hould only a fine be imposed and
the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application
of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment."

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.
Annotation:
The second element of the offense is the knowledge of the accused about the
insufficiency of funds. It must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time the check was issued. Section 2
provides that the accused must be notified of the dishonor. The prosecution must
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. 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. It's
true that Section 2 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing. This,
however, should be taken in conjunction with Section 3, which provides 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.This is consistent
with the rule that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and
liberally in favor of the accused. Without a written notice of dishonor of the checks,
there is no way of determining when the 5-day period prescribed in Section 2 would
start and end. (Bax vs. People, G.R. No. 149858, 5 September 2007, citing Rico vs.
People, G.R. No. 137191, 18 November 2002, 392 SCRA 61)
In other words, the prima facie presumption arises when a check is issued. But the
law also provides that the presumption does not arise when the issuer pays the
amount of the check or makes arrangement for its payment "within five banking
days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee."
Verily, BP 22 gives the accused an opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the

check and thus avert prosecution.(King vs. People, G.R. No. 131540, 2 December
1999)
The foregoing discussion abundantly shows that the notice must be in writing. A
verbal and indirect notice, however, was found to be sufficient in the case of Yulo vs.
People, G.R. No. 142762, 4 March 2005. The pertinent finding of fact
in this case is as follows:
As Myrna [the complainant] did not know petitioners [the accused] address, she
immediately informed Josefina [the "best friend of the accused] about the
dishonored checks. The latter told Myrna not to worry and repeated her assurance
that petitioner is her best friend and a good payer. Myrna tried to get petitioners
address from Josefina, but the latter refused and instead made the assurance that
she will inform petitioner that the checks were dishonored.
It is clear from these findings that there was no written notice given to the accused.
It is also clear that no notice, even a verbal notice, was given directly to the
accused. Still, the Supreme Court concluded that:
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 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 would appear to be inconsistent with the required burden of proof and
the rule of interpretation of penal laws, succinctly noted in King vs. People, thus:
We must stress that BP 22, like all penal statutes, is construed strictly against the
State and liberally in favor of the accused. Likewise, the prosecution has the burden
to prove beyond reasonable doubt each element of the crime. Hence, the
prosecutions case must rise or fall on the strength of its own evidence, never on
the weakness or even absence of that of the defense.

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

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.
Annotation:
The third element of the offense is the dishonor of the check. Under Section 3, "the
introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check, having the drawees
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." For instance, in
the case of King vs. People (supra), the prosecution presented the checks which
were stamped with the words ACCOUNT CLOSED, supported by the returned
check tickets issued by the depository bank stating that the checks had been
dishonored. The documents constitute prima facie evidence that the drawee bank
dishonored the checks, and no no evidence was presented to rebut the claim.

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

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, 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.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019

As amended by RA 3047, PD 77, and BP 195 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Section 2. Definition of Terms
Government the national government, the local government, the GOCCs and all other instrumentalities
or agencies of the government
Public officer elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exempt services receiving compensation, even nominal from the government.
Receiving any gift - accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a member of the
public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his family or relative within the
fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or
national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive.
Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officials:
The corrupt practices herein enumerated are in addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law.
1. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of
rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official
duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or
offense
Persons Liable:
a. Public officer who persuades, induces, or influences another public officer.
b. Public officer who is persuaded, induced or influenced.
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself
or for any other person, in connection with any other contract or transaction between the government and
any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law
The lack of demand is immaterial. After all, Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 uses the word or between
requesting and receiving.
There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider it
as his or her own property from then on. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstance or act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to conclude that the crime has
been committed. (Peligrino vs. People, G.R. No. 136266, August 31, 2001)
3. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity has secured
or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any government permit or license, in consideration for the help given
or to be given, without prejudice to Sec. 13 of this Act.
4. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within 1 year after his termination.
5. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to
officers and employees of offices or Government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
permits or other concessions
To be held liable under said section, the act of the accused which caused undue injury must have been
done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

 If the act was committed with malice, the crime committed may be that under Article 207 (malicious
delay in the administration of justice) of the RPC.
Gross negligence - negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act
in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care
which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their property. (Alejandro v. People, G.R.
No. 81031, February 20, 1989) In case of public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty
is flagrant and palpable. (Quibal v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 109991, May 22, 1995).
6. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from
any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of
favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other
interested party.
7. Entering on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
It is not necessary that the public officer profited or will profit from the contract or transaction. It is the
commission of the act as defined by law and not the character thereof that determines whether the
provision has been violated.
8. Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by law from having any interest.
9. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group which he is a member; and which
exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval
of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transactions or acts by the board, panel or group to which
they belong.
10. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not qualified or entitled.
11. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized
date
If damage was caused, Article 229 (revelation of secrets by an officer) under the RPC is committed.
Section 4. Prohibition on Private Individuals
1. Taking advantage of family or close personal relation with public official is punished
Family relation- include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree
Close personal relation- include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
2. Knowingly inducing or causing any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3
Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives
The spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the 3RD CIVIL DEGREE, of the
President, the Vice-President, Senate President, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives is
prohibited to intervene directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the
government.

Exceptions to the provisions:

a. Any person who prior to the assumption of office of any of those officials to whom he is related, has
been already dealing with the government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction,
contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office
b. Any application filed by him, the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or
officials concerned but depends upon compliance with the requisites provided by law, or rules or
regulations issued pursuant to law
c. Any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession
Section 6. Prohibition on Members of Congress
Members of Congress during their term are prohibited to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary
interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by
any law or resolution authored by them.
The prohibition shall also apply to any public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the
enactment or adoption of any law or resolution and acquires or receives any such interest during his
incumbency.
The member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of a
law or resolution authored or recommended by him,
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080
ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
Means or schemes to acquire ill-gotten wealth:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2. By receiving directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage or any other form of
pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract/project or by
reason of his office/position;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the government;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting, directly or indirectly, any shares of stock, equity or any other form
of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementing
particular persons or special interests;
6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly
enrich himself or themselves.
These should be committed by a combination or through a series of acts. There should be at least two
acts otherwise the accused should be charged with the particular crime committed and not with plunder. A
COMBINATION means at least two acts of a different category while a SERIES means at least two acts
of the same category (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 21, 2001).
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties
Plunder a crime committed by any public officer, by himself , or in connivance with his family, relatives
by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, by amassing,
accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least 50 million
pesos.
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua to Death
Mitigating and extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the courts in the imposition of
penalty.
Section 4. Rule of Evidence

 It is NOT necessary to prove each and every criminal act done. A pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the over-all unlawful scheme or conspiracy shall be sufficient.
Section 6. Prescription of Crimes
The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in 20 years. However, the right of the State to
recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees
shall not be barred by prescription or laches or estoppel.
Plunder is a crime malum in se because the constitutive crimes are mala in se. The elements of mens
rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 21, 2001)

R.A. No. 8294 -- Illegal Possession of Firearm

Q: If the firearm was licensed but the same is already expired?
A: It is the same as possessing an unlicensed firearm.
Q: How is a firearm obtained?
A: File an application at the Firearms and Explosives Office. If you are a member of the
police force, you already have the "privilege" to carry a firearm. There are two separate
licenses, one for the purpose of keeping a licensed firearm at home and one for carrying
it outside. The order required for the latter is often termed as the "mission order."
Q: If your licensed firearm is only for home use and you are caught carrying it
outside, are you liable under this law?
A: Yes, you're liable for carrying a firearm without authority.
Q: Can Illegal Possession of Firearms be complexed by Murder or Homicide?
A: In the case of People v. Barros, Justice Laurence Regalado said that under P.D.
1866, two kinds of crimes could be charged -- that of Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Murder or Homicide. It would not constitute double jeopardy. However, if the law already
punishes the act (Murder or Homicide) with death, the highest penalty under the law, it
would be useless to punish the accused by another penalty for the other crime, which is
Illegal Possession. The Supreme Court thus ruled, en banc, that there is only one crime
- that of Murder or Homicide aggravated with the use of unlicensed firearm.
Later on, in a separate case of People v. Quijado, Justice Davide overturned Justice
Regalado's ruling, by stating that the two crimes are under two separate laws. Murder or
Homicide is governed by the Revised Penal Code while Illegal Possession is under
Special Penal Laws. One crime cannot be absorbed into the other because the two are
distinct and separate from each other. Besides, one is not barred from making two

separate charges.
The issue became moot when Congress passed R.A. 8294.
Under the new law, several new distinctions were made, including the caliber of the
weapon. For low-powered weapons, the penalty is only prision correccional (6 mos. and
1 day - 6 yrs.), which means that the offender can avail of the benefits of probation. If it
is a high-powered gun, the measurement of the ring exceeds 9mm, the penalty is prision
mayor (6 yrs. and 1 day - 12 yrs.).
Q: Are air rifles covered under this law?
A: There are air rifles that can be converted into .22 caliber rifles, in which case, it is
covered under the law.
Q: Under the new law, are there still two separate crimes of Murder or Homicide
and Illegal Possession?
A: No. R.A. No. 8294 provides that if the unlicensed firearm is used in the commission
of any of the acts under the Revised Penal Code or special laws, possession is
considered as an aggravated circumstance. The crime therefore is Murder or Homicide
aggravated with the use of unlicensed firearm, and the penalty is death.
Q: The firearm is licensed but you are not the owner. Liable?
A: Yes, because the holder of the license is only the owner of the firearm.
Q: Security guards do not apply for license. Are they liable?
A: Not liable if the agency has a license. What the security guard holds, therefore, is not
the actual license but an authority from the agency that he works for and that has a
license. The rule is that these firearms are restricted to the designated posts of the
guards. They could not be brought home. Otherwise, it would constitute a violation of
the law. This is true even if the guard did not intend to bring home the gun. Under the
Special Penal Laws, intention is immaterial.
Q: There are instances where the agency will only secure licenses for three guns
and then go ahead and distribute six guns to six different guards, changing only
the serial numbers of each gun to match the serial numbers in the licenses. Who
is liable - the agency or the security gun?
A: A distinction must be made. If the security guard is aware that he is carrying an

unlicensed firearm, then he can be charged with the crime. If not, the other two possible
offenders are the owner of the company or the manager of the agency.
An employee is entitled to assume that his employer had the requisite license to
possess the firearm.
Q: How many guns is a person allowed?
A: Usually two - one long caliber and one short. Long caliber weapons are usually just
issued to the military.
Q: Who issues the license?
A: Only the President has the authority to issue a license, but his power is delegated to
the Chief of the PNP. If your license was not issued by the PNP Chief, then that license
is invalid.

NOTA BENE:
There is no such thing as a complex crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm with
Homicide.
There is only one crime, but aggravated (Justice Regalado's ruling).
If you are a member of a gun club, the club will be the one who will process everything
for you and you will only receive the gun.