NO RESERVATION OF CIVIL ACTION IN B.P. BLG. 22 CASES
(Rule 111 of the Rules of Court – Prosecution of Civil Action in Criminal Cases)

1. INTRODUCTION

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“B.P. 22” or “The Bouncing Checks Law”) penalizes the mere act of issuing a check that is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or because the account was closed. B.P. 22 is classified as a special law designed to safeguard banking and financial institutions by discouraging the issuance of worthless checks. It is considered malum prohibitum, meaning criminal intent is not material—what the law punishes is the very act of issuing a bouncing check.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action), a key feature in cases involving B.P. 22 is that the civil liability for the dishonored check is deemed instituted with the criminal action. Consequently, no separate reservation of the civil action is allowed in B.P. 22 cases. This deviates from the general rule in some other criminal cases, where the offended party may choose to separately (a) reserve, (b) waive, or (c) institute prior to the criminal action, the civil aspect of the offense.

2. LEGAL BASIS: RULE 111, RULES OF COURT

Rule 111, Section 1(a), Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (as amended) generally provides that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is also impliedly instituted.
However, the same rule and jurisprudence allow the offended party to:
- Waive the civil action;
- Reserve the right to institute it separately; or
- Institute the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Exception in B.P. 22 Cases: Despite the above options, there is established Supreme Court doctrine that in criminal prosecutions for violation of B.P. 22, the civil aspect is always deemed included (impliedly instituted) and no reservation to file a separate civil action is permitted. This special treatment is due to the very nature of B.P. 22, which is anchored on the issuance of a check representing a sum of money—hence the offended party’s cause of action for the value of the check is inextricably linked to the criminal charge.
In fact, Rule 111, Section 1(b) specifically cites that in cases of violations of B.P. 22, the criminal action for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. This means that when you file a criminal complaint for B.P. 22, you are already seeking to recover the value of the dishonored check (and other damages, if applicable) without needing to reserve a separate civil action.

3. REASONS FOR NO RESERVATION

Protection of the Banking System
One of the main legislative intents behind B.P. 22 is to protect the integrity of banking instruments and commerce. Allowing separate reservations of civil actions in B.P. 22 cases could encourage undue delay, multiple lawsuits, or piecemeal litigation contrary to the purpose of swiftly and effectively enforcing the law.
Efficiency in Litigation
By automatically including the civil liability in the criminal action, parties avoid multiple suits involving the same factual matrix—i.e., the issuance and dishonor of the check. This policy fosters judicial economy and ensures that victims (payees or holders of the check) can secure redress (the amount covered by the check plus possible damages/costs) during the criminal proceedings themselves.
Nature of B.P. 22 Offenses
Being malum prohibitum, the mere issuance of a check that bounces (without sufficient funds or drawn against a closed account) is the punishable act. The direct damage or prejudice to the payee or holder is the face value of the check. Hence, it logically follows that recovering this sum is integral to the criminal case and need not be separately pursued.
Avoiding Inconsistent Outcomes
If a separate civil action were allowed, there is a risk of conflicting judgments. The criminal court could find the accused guilty and fix civil liability while a separate civil action might produce a different outcome on the same essential issue—whether the issuer was liable for the amount of the check. The rule consolidates liability determinations in a single proceeding.

4. CONSEQUENCES OF AUTOMATIC INCLUSION

No Separate Reservation: The offended party (complainant) in a B.P. 22 case cannot reserve the civil action to be filed independently. Once the criminal complaint is filed, the civil liability is deemed included.
No Need for a Separate Civil Suit for Sum of Money: Although in ordinary obligations or contract-based collection suits a creditor might file a separate complaint for the sum of money, in B.P. 22 situations, doing so after the criminal case is instituted typically constitutes a splitting of causes of action. Courts have consistently disfavored this practice.
Deemed Waiver if a Prior Civil Action is Filed: If the offended party, for instance, decides to first file an independent civil action to collect the value of the bounced check (prior to the filing of the criminal case), then any subsequent criminal case’s civil aspect is deemed waived—this is consistent with the general rules that one cannot have double recovery for the same act.
Legal Fees and Other Damages: The civil liability in B.P. 22 cases can include not just the face value of the check, but also accrued interest, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and other proven damages as the court sees fit, subject to prevailing jurisprudence on awarding damages.

5. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

Supreme Court Circulars
- Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 guided lower courts on how to handle B.P. 22 cases—particularly encouraging the imposition of fines rather than imprisonment where appropriate. However, these do not affect the rule on the automatic inclusion of civil liability.
Case Law Affirming Automatic Inclusion
- The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that “the civil action for the recovery of the amount of the check in B.P. 22 cases is deemed instituted with the criminal action and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.”
- Jurisprudence underscores that such rule prevents separate or duplicative suits and ensures prompt recovery of the sum indicated in the bounced check.
Doctrine of Implied Institution
- The concept that the civil liability is impliedly instituted in criminal actions for B.P. 22 comes from both statutory construction (reading B.P. 22 in relation to Rule 111) and from the Supreme Court’s consistent pronouncements that the offended party’s remedy to recover the value of the check is integral to the prosecution.

6. HOW THE CIVIL ASPECT IS PROSECUTED

Pleading the Civil Liability: In the criminal complaint or information for B.P. 22, the offended party (commonly referred to as the payee or the holder of the dishonored check) need not file a separate complaint for the civil aspect. The prosecutor can allege in the Information that the accused is liable for the amount of the check plus interest and/or other damages.
Evidence for Civil Liability: During trial, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime (e.g., issuance of the check, dishonor, knowledge of insufficient funds) but also the entitlement of the complainant to recover the face value of the check and, where applicable, additional damages.
Judgment: If the accused is found guilty, the criminal court’s decision will include a pronouncement on:
1. Criminal Penalty (imprisonment or fine, subject to the guidelines for B.P. 22 sentences); and
2. Civil Liability (payment of the face value of the check, including accrued interest, and if warranted, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, etc.).

7. KEY TAKEAWAYS

No Separate Reservation: In cases for violation of B.P. 22, the civil liability (basically the sum of money represented by the bounced check plus damages) is automatically included in the criminal action. The complainant cannot make a separate reservation of the civil action.
One-Stop Litigation: This rule streamlines the legal process, so the creditor or offended party obtains a one-stop remedy—conviction of the accused for the criminal act and recovery of the value of the check in a single proceeding.
Jurisprudential Uniformity: The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that this approach avoids duplicity of suits, conserves judicial resources, and protects the accused from multiple liabilities from the same act.
Be Mindful of Other Civil Claims: While the face value of the check is automatically included, additional civil claims (like moral damages) are generally circumscribed by the Court’s discretion and must still be proven. The main principle remains that the civil aspect (the value of the check and directly related damages) is inseparable from the criminal action for B.P. 22.
Effect if Separate Civil Action is Filed First: If the payee files a civil suit for collection before the criminal case is filed, he/she is deemed to have waived the civil aspect in the potential future criminal case for B.P. 22. The rule disallows the offended party from seeking double recovery.
No Double Recovery: If the accused, upon demand or even during the pendency of the case, makes full restitution of the check’s value plus agreed costs, it may mitigate or even forestall criminal prosecution if the offended party acknowledges satisfaction of the debt. However, the final decision on dismissing or pursuing the criminal case lies within prosecutorial discretion and the court’s prerogative, given that B.P. 22 is malum prohibitum.

8. CONCLUSION

In summary, there is no reservation of civil action in B.P. 22 cases due to the established rule that the civil liability (i.e., the face value of the dishonored check, along with appropriate damages) is automatically included (or impliedly instituted) in the criminal action. This integrated approach expedites resolution, ensures consistency in judgments, and aligns with the legislative objective of protecting the integrity of negotiable instruments.

Hence, in every criminal complaint or information for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, the claim for the recovery of the amount of the check is inherently part of the same proceeding—precluding the possibility of a separate civil action for the same underlying obligation.