Handling Bounced Check Cases (BP 22) from 1998

Below is a comprehensive discussion on Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“BP 22”), colloquially known as the “Bouncing Checks Law,” focusing on its historical context, legal framework, jurisprudential developments, and practical considerations in the Philippines, with particular emphasis on its application and interpretation around and after 1998. Although the law was enacted in 1979, important jurisprudential clarifications and guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court through the late 1990s and early 2000s.

1. Historical and Legal Background

1.1. Enactment of BP 22

  • Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (1979): Enacted on April 3, 1979, BP 22 aimed to deter the issuance of worthless checks and protect public interest by penalizing the act of making or drawing a check with insufficient funds or credit.
  • Objective: Before BP 22, civil remedies existed for dishonored checks (e.g., under negotiable instruments law or the Civil Code), but criminal sanctions were not clearly spelled out. BP 22 thus introduced penal liability to discourage the misuse of checks as negotiable instruments.

1.2. Importance of Checks in Commercial Transactions

  • Checks as Substitutes for Cash: In commercial practice, checks often substitute for actual cash. When a check bounces, it disrupts the commercial flow and undermines trust.
  • Need for Swift Redress: Because businesses rely on the trustworthiness of checks, the law seeks to address the harm caused when the issuer intentionally issues a check with insufficient funds or without arranging adequate credit.

2. The Core Provisions of BP 22

2.1. Main Offense under Section 1

BP 22, Section 1 penalizes any person who:

  1. Makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value;
  2. Knows at the time of issue that he or she does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank;
  3. The check is subsequently dishonored 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.

2.2. Presumption of Knowledge

  • The law presumes that the drawer knew of the insufficiency of funds if:
    • The check is presented within 90 days from the date of issue; and
    • The check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit;
    • The drawer fails to make arrangements for payment of the check within 5 banking days from receiving notice of dishonor.

2.3. Penalties

  • Imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or

  • Fine of not less than the amount of the check but not more than double that amount (and in no case exceeding PHP 200,000), or

  • Both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

    Notably, the Supreme Court has, over time, issued administrative circulars to encourage courts to consider fines rather than imprisonment, especially for first-time or small-amount offenders. However, judges still have the discretion to impose imprisonment, a fine, or both.

3. Elements of the Offense

To successfully prosecute an offense under BP 22, the following elements must be shown:

  1. The accused makes, draws, or issues a check for value;
  2. Knowledge on the part of the issuer at the time of issuance that the funds are insufficient or no credit arrangement exists to cover the amount of the check;
  3. Subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank due to insufficiency of funds or credit; and
  4. Failure of the issuer to pay or make arrangements with the bank to cover the check within five banking days from receiving notice of dishonor.

In practice, the strongest indicator is the written notice of dishonor (or proof that notice was attempted and was deliberately refused). If the issuer still fails to settle within five banking days after such notice, the presumption of knowledge applies.

4. Noteworthy Jurisprudence and Guidelines (Focusing on 1990s-2000s)

While the law dates to 1979, several landmark rulings and administrative guidelines came about in and around the late 1990s and early 2000s that shaped its enforcement:

  1. Case Law Clarifying Notice Requirement

    • The Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized the importance of proper notice of dishonor to establish knowledge on the part of the issuer. Proof of sending the notice via registered mail to the issuer’s last known address is typically sufficient, but the prosecution must still prove that the drawer had the opportunity to be aware of it.

  2. Administrative Circulars on Penalties

    • Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (Promulgated in 2000): Encouraged courts to impose fines rather than imprisonment in B.P. 22 cases, to reduce congestion in jails and consider the nature of the offense as primarily economic in character. However, courts still have the discretion to sentence imprisonment if circumstances warrant.
    • Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 (Promulgated in 2001): Clarified that the earlier circular does not remove the court’s discretion to impose imprisonment if the facts show moral turpitude, large amounts involved, or repeated offenses.

  3. Constitutionality of BP 22

    • Courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of BP 22 despite challenges claiming it effectively jails people for non-payment of debt. The Supreme Court has ruled that the penal sanction is for the issuance of a worthless check—an act of misrepresentation—rather than for the mere failure to pay a debt.

  4. Relevance to 1998 Cases

    • While there was no direct legislative amendment to BP 22 in 1998, the Supreme Court repeatedly issued decisions around that period that reaffirmed the notice requirement, the presumption of knowledge, and clarified the extent of criminal liability.
    • Notably, post-1998 decisions emphasize that the essence of BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a check that the issuer knows will not be funded—an act tantamount to fraud in commercial transactions.

5. Defenses against BP 22 Charges

  1. No Notice of Dishonor
    • If the accused can prove that they did not receive actual or constructive notice of dishonor, then the presumption of knowledge does not arise.
  2. Full Payment or Arrangement within Five Banking Days
    • Even if the check is dishonored, the issuer can avoid liability if they settle the amount or arrange for credit within five banking days from notice.
  3. Lack of Knowledge or Intent
    • If the accused can demonstrate that at the time of issuing the check, there was sufficient deposit or arrangement but the funds were unexpectedly withdrawn or frozen by the bank (or that the check was issued under force, intimidation, or deception by a third party), they might evade criminal liability.
  4. Prescription Period
    • Under Act No. 3326 (governing the prescriptive periods for special laws), BP 22 offenses prescribe in four years. If the charge is filed beyond four years from the commission of the offense, the accused may raise prescription as a defense.

6. Procedural Aspects

  1. Filing of Criminal Complaint
    • The offended party (payee) typically initiates a complaint with the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor.
  2. Preliminary Investigation
    • During the preliminary investigation, the complainant must present the dishonored check, notice of dishonor, and any accompanying documentary evidence.
  3. Arraignment and Trial
    • Once the Information is filed in court, the accused is arraigned, and a trial ensues if the accused pleads not guilty.
  4. Civil Aspect
    • BP 22 allows the offended party to include civil indemnity claims in the criminal action. The complainant may recover the amount of the check and other damages if proven.
  5. Judgment and Execution
    • If convicted, the penalty could be imprisonment or a fine—or both. The court will also decide on the civil aspect and order restitution as warranted.

7. Practical Tips and Considerations

  1. For Issuers of Checks

    • Always ensure that the account has sufficient funds or that arrangements with the bank exist at issuance and presentation of the check.
    • Update your official mailing address with the bank (and with transaction partners) to avoid missing a notice of dishonor.
    • If you receive a notice of dishonor, immediately settle or secure the requisite funds within five banking days to avoid criminal liability.

  2. For Payees (Complainants)

    • Keep copies of demand letters, notices, and proof of mailing when checks bounce.
    • Present the check for clearing within 90 days from issue date to preserve the presumption under the law.
    • Promptly initiate legal action to ensure that the complaint is filed within the prescriptive period.

  3. For Legal Practitioners

    • Ensure that the elements of BP 22 are carefully laid out in the complaint or Information.
    • Gather conclusive proof of notice. The “notice of dishonor” is a critical piece of evidence.
    • Watch for any mitigating factors that could influence the penalty (especially in light of Supreme Court administrative circulars urging fines over imprisonment in certain circumstances).

8. Recent Developments and Continuing Applicability

  • Judicial Discretion on Penalties: Courts have been encouraged to prefer fines, especially for first-time offenders or for smaller amounts, but imprisonment remains an option.
  • Digital Transactions: With electronic banking and online transfers becoming more widespread, the reliance on physical checks has somewhat decreased. Nevertheless, BP 22 remains in force for check transactions still in use.
  • Legislative Proposals: Over the years, there have been proposals to decriminalize bouncing checks, but none have comprehensively overturned BP 22. Thus, the law still stands as of this writing.
  • Ongoing Relevance: The fundamental protective function of BP 22—to maintain trust in checks as negotiable instruments—remains particularly relevant in sectors that continue to rely on checks (real estate, post-dated checks for installment payments, etc.).

9. Conclusion

BP 22 (“Bouncing Checks Law”) is a longstanding Philippine law that criminalizes the act of issuing checks without sufficient funds. Although enacted in 1979, its enforcement and interpretation have evolved through significant Supreme Court directives and jurisprudence in the late 1990s and early 2000s, especially regarding the necessity of notice of dishonor and the recommended imposition of fines over imprisonment.

Despite shifts in commercial practice toward electronic payment systems, BP 22 remains legally potent and protects the integrity of checks as negotiable instruments. Individuals and businesses in the Philippines engaged in issuing or receiving checks must remain aware of both the penal and procedural elements of BP 22. Failing to comply can result not just in civil liability, but also in criminal prosecution and potentially imprisonment or substantial fines.

References and Notable Cases

  • Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (1979)
  • Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 (Supreme Court)
  • Vaca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131714 (1999) – reaffirming the validity of BP 22 and the presumption of knowledge.
  • People v. Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-62243 (1983) – earlier Supreme Court clarification of notice requirement.
  • Lim vs. People, G.R. No. 130038 (1998) – Supreme Court case emphasizing the five-day notice rule and the sufficiency of proof of notice via registered mail.

(This list is not exhaustive but includes key authorities that shaped the interpretation of BP 22 through and post-1998.)

Disclaimer

This discussion is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns regarding BP 22 cases, consult a licensed attorney with expertise in Philippine criminal law and negotiable instruments.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login