Overview

In Philippine penal law, the issuance of worthless checks can generate two distinct criminal liabilities:

Statute	Common name	Nature of offense	Governing text
Article 315(2)(d), Revised Penal Code (RPC)	Estafa by post‑dating or issuing a bouncing check	Mala in se (inherently wrongful; deceit an essential element)	Act No. 3815, as amended
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22)	Bouncing Checks Law	Mala prohibita (punished because the law says so; intent is generally immaterial)	BP 22 (penal statute, 1979)

Although both deal with bad checks, they protect different social interests, require different elements, and carry different procedural and substantive rules. Below is a point‑by‑point guide frequently relied on by prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts.

1. Constitutive Acts & Elements

1.1 Estafa (Art. 315 §2[d] RPC)

Post‑dating or issuing a check.
At the time of issuance, the drawer knows that he lacks sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank.
The check is used to defraud—i.e., to induce the payee to part with money, property, or services.
Damage or prejudice is caused to the offended party.

Key doctrine: Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L‑63419 (Feb 18 1986) clarified that deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation) distinguishes estafa from BP 22.

1.2 BP 22

Making, drawing, or issuing any check.
Knowledge of insufficiency of funds (presumed if the check is dishonored within 90 days and no payment is made within 5 banking days from notice of dishonor).
The check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it was drawn on a closed account.

There is no need to prove deceit, inducement, or actual damage. The offense is consummated upon dishonor plus failure to pay within the 5‑day grace period after written notice.

2. Mens Rea (State of Mind)

Point of comparison	Estafa	BP 22
Intent to defraud	Required. Absence of deceit negates liability.	Not required. The act is punished regardless of motive or intent.
Presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds	No statutory presumption; prosecution must prove actual knowledge.	Yes, after bank dishonor + failure to pay in 5 days (Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119000, June 29 1998).

3. Civil Liability & Effect of Payment

Aspect	Estafa	BP 22
Civil action	Impliedly instituted with the criminal case unless reserved (Rule 111, Rules of Court).	Independent. The law imposes a separate civil liability equal to double the amount of the check plus attorney’s fees (Sec. 1).
Effect of full payment BEFORE filing	May negate damage and extinguish criminal action.	Does not bar prosecution; can mitigate penalty but liability subsists.
Effect of payment AFTER filing but BEFORE conviction	Extinguishes civil liability but not criminal liability (Domagsang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161455, Feb 23 2005).	No automatic dismissal; court may still impose penalty.

4. Penalties

Statute	Imprisonment	Fine
Estafa	Prisión correccional to prisión mayor (up to 20 years) depending on amount defrauded (Art. 315, par. 2).	Optional additional fine not to exceed twice the value defrauded.
BP 22	Imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year or fine up to double the amount of the check or both at court’s discretion.	Court may impose fine alone (RA 10951, 2017 amendment).

Prescription: Estafa—15 years (Art. 90 RPC); BP 22—4 years (Art. 19, Rev. Penal Code by analogy; BP 22 lacks express rule but jurisprudence applies Art. 90).

5. Jurisdiction & Venue

Point	Estafa	BP 22
Court	Regional Trial Court (amount > P1.2 M²) or MTC/MeTC (≤ P1.2 M) after RA 11576 (2021).	Generally MTC/MeTC regardless of amount.
Venue	Where any element occurred—often where check was issued and where it was cashed/dishonored.	Where check was issued, delivered, or dishonored. Supreme Court allows prosecution in multiple venues to prevent evasion.

² Threshold adjusted by RA 10951 (2017) and RA 11576 (2021).

6. Defenses Available

6.1 Estafa

Lack of deceit (e.g., loan already existing before check).
Absence of damage (e.g., payment before filing).
Novation extinguishing civil obligation before filing (People v. Ojeda, CA‑G.R. No. 6640‑R, 1963).
Good faith belief that funds were sufficient.

6.2 BP 22

No written notice of dishonor received (Abarquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103375, Jan 25 1993).
Payment or arrangement within 5 banking days from notice.
Check issued for a pre‑existing obligation and NOT to apply on account of value? ― Irrelevant; still punishable.
Post‑dated check was not presented within 90 days from date appearing on its face.

7. Double Jeopardy & Concurrence

One act may simultaneously constitute estafa and BP 22.
Separate offenses; prosecution under one does not bar the other (People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 156618, Apr 11 2005).
Courts often consolidate trials for expediency, but two informations and two judgments are required.

8. Evidentiary Highlights

Element	Estafa proof	BP 22 proof
Deceit	Testimony that the check induced delivery of money/property.	Not in issue.
Knowledge of insufficiency	Bank statement, admissions, circumstances.	Prima facie presumed; prosecution must show written notice and failure to pay in 5 days.
Notice of dishonor	Helpful but not indispensable.	Indispensable; absence is fatal.

9. Recent Legislative & Jurisprudential Developments

RA 10951 (2017)—recalibrated estafa thresholds for penalties (now P1.2 M for maximum imprisonment).
RA 11576 (2021)—expanded RTC jurisdiction, impacting which court tries estafa.
Administrative Circular 12‑2000 & 13‑2001—Supreme Court guidelines favor fines over imprisonment for BP 22, emphasizing restorative justice.
Lina Lim Lao v. CA, G.R. No. 119178 (Jun 30 1997)—reiterated that post‑dated checks issued as loan security do not constitute deceit; may absolve estafa liability yet still violate BP 22.
Go v. People, G.R. No. 194338 (Nov 27 2017)—clarified that a “memorandum” check (check with “MEMO”) can still violate BP 22.

10. Practical Litigation Tips

For Prosecution	For Defense
Estafa: Document the inducement—emails, contracts, delivery receipts.	Attack deceit: show pre‑existing debt or collateral nature of the check.
BP 22: Secure bank CERTIFICATION OF DISHONOR and registry‑return card of notice.	Demand strict proof of notice; question admissibility of photocopies.
Strategize venue: file where witnesses reside to avoid dismissal for forum shopping.	Explore amicable settlement early; payment may persuade court to impose fine only under BP 22.

11. Comparison Snapshot

Feature	Estafa (RPC)	BP 22
Social interest protected	Property rights, trust.	Banking & commercial stability.
Offense nature	Mala in se	Mala prohibita
Essential element	Deceit + damage	Dishonor + notice + failure to pay
Intent requirement	Yes	No
Penalty range	Up to 20 yrs	30 days–1 yr (often fine only)
Effect of full restitution	May extinguish crime if before filing	No, but mitigates
Notice of dishonor	Helpful, not essential	Jurisdictional
Prescription	15 yrs	4 yrs
Double jeopardy with the other?	No	No

Conclusion

While both Article 315(2)(d) of the RPC and BP 22 punish the issuance of bad checks, they differ fundamentally in purpose, elements, punishability, and available defenses:

Estafa focuses on fraudulent inducement and resulting injury, demanding proof of deceit and actual damage.
BP 22 is a regulatory offense that penalizes the mere act of issuing a check that later bounces, regardless of intent or actual harm, provided statutory notice procedures are followed.

Practitioners must carefully assess the facts, evidence of deceit, compliance with notice, and timing of payments to determine the proper charge, craft defenses, or negotiate settlement. Mastery of both provisions—and of the jurisprudence harmonizing them—ensures effective advocacy and avoids common pitfalls such as improper venue, failure to prove notice, or overlooking prescription.