Bouncing Checks Law [B.P. Blg. 22; A.C. No. 12-2000; A.C. No. 13-2001] | SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

CRIMINAL LAW: BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. BLG. 22)

---

The Bouncing Checks Law, also known as Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, was enacted to address the issuance of worthless checks and penalize those who undermine the integrity of commercial transactions through bad checks. Below is a comprehensive overview of the law, its elements, penalties, procedural guidelines, and jurisprudential interpretations.

---

I. ELEMENTS OF B.P. BLG. 22

To successfully prosecute under B.P. Blg. 22, the following elements must be established:

1. Issuance of a Check

   • The accused must have issued a check, which includes drawing and delivering the instrument.
   • The issuance must be for valuable consideration or as a guarantee.

2. Knowledge of Insufficient Funds

   • At the time of issuance, the drawer must have known that he/she did not have sufficient funds or credit in the bank to cover the check.
   • Knowledge is presumed if:
     • The bank dishonors the check for insufficiency of funds or credit; and
     • The drawer fails to make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days from receiving the notice of dishonor.

3. Dishonor of the Check

   • The check must have been presented within 90 days from issuance.
   • It must have been dishonored for:
     • Insufficiency of funds; or
     • The closure of the account.

---

II. KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. Presumption of Knowledge

   • The law presumes that the issuer had knowledge of insufficient funds if:
     • The check is dishonored; and
     • Notice of dishonor has been sent and no payment is made within 5 banking days.

2. Separate Liability from Civil Obligations

   • B.P. Blg. 22 establishes criminal liability, which is distinct from any civil obligation arising from the issuance of the check.
   • The purpose is not to collect the amount but to punish the act of undermining public confidence in negotiable instruments.

3. Nature of Offense

   • The offense is malum prohibitum.
     • Intent to defraud is not required; the mere act of issuing a worthless check constitutes the offense.

4. Primacy of Notice of Dishonor

   • The absence of proof of notice of dishonor is a valid defense.
   • The prosecution must establish that the drawer received notice of dishonor and was given an opportunity to settle.

5. Corporate Checks

   • In cases where checks are issued by corporations, liability may attach to the person who signed the check (e.g., corporate officers), not the corporation itself.

6. Postdated Checks

   • The law applies to postdated checks if dishonored under the same circumstances.

---

III. PENALTIES

Under B.P. Blg. 22, the penalties are as follows:

1. Imprisonment

   • Imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year for each count.

2. Fine

   • A fine of an amount equal to double the amount of the check but not exceeding Php 200,000.

3. Imprisonment and Fine

   • The court has the discretion to impose both penalties.

4. Subsidiary Penalty

   • In case of insolvency to pay the fine, the offender may be subject to subsidiary imprisonment.

5. A.C. No. 12-2000

   • Courts are allowed to impose only a fine if circumstances warrant it, as a departure from the usual penalty of imprisonment and fine.

---

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES (A.C. Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001)

1. A.C. No. 12-2000: Non-Imposition of Imprisonment in Certain Cases

   • The Supreme Court directed courts to consider penalties of fine alone for first-time offenders or in cases where imprisonment would be unduly harsh.

2. A.C. No. 13-2001: Streamlining Procedures in B.P. Blg. 22 Cases

   • Courts are required to expedite the resolution of B.P. Blg. 22 cases.
   • Strict adherence to procedural timelines is mandated to prevent undue delay.

---

V. DEFENSES AGAINST B.P. BLG. 22

1. Absence of Notice of Dishonor

   • If the drawer did not receive written notice of dishonor, liability cannot attach.

2. Payment Before Presentment

   • If the issuer settles the obligation before the check is presented, no criminal liability arises.

3. Check Issued as Guarantee

   • If the check was issued as a pure guarantee (not for valuable consideration), liability under B.P. Blg. 22 does not apply.

4. Lack of Authority

   • If the accused did not sign or authorize the issuance of the check.

5. Forgery

   • The drawer may raise forgery as a defense if the signature on the check was not theirs.

---

VI. JURISPRUDENCE

1. Lozano v. Martinez (146 SCRA 323, 1986)

   • Affirmed the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22, emphasizing the State’s interest in safeguarding confidence in negotiable instruments.

2. Ravanera v. People (G.R. No. 172800, 2008)

   • Reiterated the requirement of notice of dishonor and opportunity to pay.

3. Lim v. People (G.R. No. 130038, 1999)

   • Held that a check issued in payment of pre-existing obligations is covered by B.P. Blg. 22.

4. De Villa v. People (G.R. No. 195673, 2013)

   • Distinguished civil liability from criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22.

---

VII. COMPLIANCE TIPS FOR DRAWERS

1. Ensure sufficient funds or credit in the account when issuing checks.
2. Monitor issued checks to avoid inadvertent dishonor.
3. Respond promptly to notices of dishonor.
4. Avoid issuing checks as guarantees if unsure of coverage.

---

Conclusion
The Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) is a vital measure to preserve the sanctity of negotiable instruments in commerce. Compliance with its provisions and procedural safeguards is essential to avoid criminal liability while maintaining the integrity of financial transactions.