Lack of Consideration as a Defense in BP 22 Cases

Simplified Question: Can the failure or lack of consideration be used as a defense in cases involving BP 22 in the Philippines?

In the Philippines, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, criminalizes the act of making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at the time of issue that the issuer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank. This article explores whether the failure or lack of consideration can be used as a defense in BP 22 cases.

Understanding BP 22

BP 22 was enacted to address the problem of dishonored checks due to insufficient funds or closed accounts. The law aims to protect the integrity of checks as a means of payment and to promote the smooth functioning of the banking system.

Elements of BP 22 Violation

To secure a conviction under BP 22, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

1. The Making, Drawing, and Issuance of Any Check: The accused must have made, drawn, or issued a check.
2. Knowledge of Insufficient Funds: At the time of issuance, the issuer knew that they did not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover the check.
3. Subsequent Dishonor of the Check: The check must have been dishonored by the bank upon presentment for payment.

Consideration in BP 22 Cases

1. Nature of Consideration: In contractual transactions, consideration refers to the value exchanged between parties. It is the inducement to enter into a contract, such as goods, services, or money.

2. Irrelevance to BP 22: In the context of BP 22, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has consistently ruled that the lack of consideration or the failure of consideration is not a valid defense. The law focuses on the act of issuing a check with insufficient funds, regardless of the underlying transaction or the reasons behind the issuance of the check.

Key Court Rulings

• Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court held that BP 22 is a malum prohibitum offense, meaning that the mere issuance of a check with knowledge of insufficient funds constitutes the crime, regardless of intent or the lack of consideration. The law aims to deter the issuance of worthless checks and to safeguard the banking system.

• Lozano vs. Martinez: The Court further emphasized that BP 22 penalizes the act of issuing a bouncing check per se. The validity or invalidity of the consideration behind the issuance of the check is immaterial to the criminal liability under BP 22.

Legal Implications

Given the established jurisprudence, the defense of lack or failure of consideration is generally not acceptable in BP 22 cases. Accused individuals cannot evade liability by arguing that the check was issued without valid consideration. The focus remains on the act of issuing a check without sufficient funds.

Conclusion

In the Philippines, the lack of consideration cannot be used as a defense in cases involving violations of BP 22. The law penalizes the issuance of bouncing checks to maintain the integrity of checks as a payment method and to protect the banking system. Courts have consistently ruled that the consideration behind the issuance of a check is irrelevant to the criminal liability under BP 22. Individuals facing BP 22 charges should seek legal advice to explore other possible defenses and to ensure proper representation in court.