Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am reaching out to seek your advice on a legal matter that has been causing me significant distress for quite some time. Back in April 2012, I received a summons in relation to a case filed against me under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). The issue stems from a check I issued while handling certain transactions, which unfortunately bounced due to insufficient funds.

The check was made out to a company for whom I was facilitating payments on behalf of others. Regrettably, the individuals I was working with failed to settle their dues, leaving me in a situation where my check, amounting to ₱10,000, could not be honored.

I had received a final billing letter from this company, which worsened the situation. Although I had attempted to resolve the matter, it has been affecting me to this day, and I continue to face an NBI (National Bureau of Investigation) "hit" whenever my records are checked.

I kindly ask for your guidance on how to best navigate this matter, clear my record, and address the legal ramifications of the BP 22 case that continues to impact me.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen

Understanding Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22)

1. Introduction to BP 22

Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, commonly referred to as the "Bouncing Checks Law," was enacted in 1979 as a means to penalize the issuance of checks that are dishonored due to insufficiency of funds or other similar reasons. The primary intent of the law was to curb the growing problem of bounced checks being used in commercial transactions, which at the time posed a serious issue for creditors and businesses alike. By penalizing such actions, the law aims to uphold good faith in financial dealings and protect the interests of payees.

The issuance of a bouncing check can lead to both criminal and civil liability. While BP 22 primarily deals with the criminal aspect, civil remedies may also be pursued by the aggrieved party. Understanding the key provisions of BP 22 and how the law is enforced is critical for anyone facing such charges.

2. Elements of BP 22 Violation

For a violation of BP 22 to be established, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:

The issuance of a check: A person must have made, drawn, or issued a check for payment.
Knowledge of insufficient funds: The issuer of the check must be aware that they do not have sufficient funds in the bank account to cover the check at the time it is issued or when it is presented for payment.
Dishonor of the check: Upon presentment, the check is dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds, a closed account, or other reasons.

It is important to note that under BP 22, the act of issuing a bounced check is considered a criminal offense, regardless of the intent or reason behind the issuance. The law presumes that a person who issues a check should ensure that there are adequate funds in the account to cover the amount stated on the check.

3. Criminal Liability Under BP 22

The criminal aspect of BP 22 imposes penalties on those who issue checks that are subsequently dishonored. The penalties include:

Imprisonment: A person convicted under BP 22 can face imprisonment of up to one year. However, recent legal developments and jurisprudence have tended to favor non-imprisonment for minor offenses, particularly when the amount involved is relatively small.
Fine: Alternatively, or in conjunction with imprisonment, the court may impose a fine equivalent to the amount of the check or an amount determined by the court.

It is worth noting that a single bounced check constitutes a separate offense. Therefore, if multiple checks are dishonored, each one could lead to separate criminal charges under BP 22.

4. Defenses Available to the Accused

Despite the strict liability nature of BP 22, there are several defenses available to those charged with violating the law:

No knowledge of insufficient funds: If the issuer can prove that they had no knowledge that their account had insufficient funds, this could be a valid defense. For example, an unexpected withdrawal or banking error may have depleted the account after the check was issued.
Payment or settlement of the obligation: If the issuer is able to settle the obligation or pay the amount of the check before a complaint is filed in court, this could lead to the dismissal of the case. In some instances, the payment made even after the filing of the complaint may result in the withdrawal of the charges.
Postdated checks issued as collateral: If a check was issued merely as a form of collateral and not as an immediate mode of payment, the court may dismiss the case, as there is no intent to defraud. This is a common defense raised in cases where checks are used in financing or loan arrangements.
Absence of demand for payment: BP 22 requires that the payee make a formal demand for payment upon dishonor of the check. If no demand is made, the case may be dismissed for lack of compliance with procedural requirements.
Bank's failure to notify the drawer: The law mandates that the drawee bank notify the drawer (the issuer) of the dishonor of the check within five banking days. If the bank fails to do so, it may serve as a mitigating factor or defense in the case.

5. Civil Liability

Aside from the criminal aspect, the issuer of a bounced check may also face civil liability. The aggrieved party (the payee) can file a civil action to recover the amount of the check and any additional damages resulting from its dishonor. This can include interest, legal fees, and other costs incurred due to the non-payment.

It is important to note that the civil and criminal aspects of BP 22 cases are distinct and separate. A person may be acquitted in the criminal case but still be held liable for the amount of the check in a civil case. Conversely, even if the issuer is convicted in the criminal case, the payee still has to pursue a separate civil action to recover the funds.

6. Prescription Period for BP 22 Cases

One aspect of BP 22 cases that is particularly important for individuals facing such charges is the statute of limitations, or prescription period. In the Philippines, BP 22 cases must generally be filed within four years from the date the check was dishonored. If no criminal case is filed within this period, the case may be barred by prescription, meaning the issuer can no longer be prosecuted.

It is crucial for individuals who have received demand letters or notices of dishonor to be aware of the time frame within which a case can be filed against them. Taking proactive steps to resolve the issue before the prescription period lapses can help avoid further complications.

7. Remedies for Clearing NBI Record

For individuals who have been convicted under BP 22 or have an ongoing case, the issue of a "hit" on their NBI clearance can be a significant burden. This can affect employment prospects, travel opportunities, and other aspects of daily life. Here are some potential remedies to clear an NBI record:

Acquittal or Dismissal of the Case: The most straightforward way to clear an NBI record is to secure an acquittal in the criminal case or have the case dismissed. This would remove the entry from the individual's record, allowing them to obtain a clean NBI clearance.
Filing of a Petition for Clearance: In some cases, even after a conviction, individuals may file a petition with the NBI or the court to clear their record after serving their sentence or paying the required fines. This may require proof of good conduct and rehabilitation.
Compromise Settlement with the Payee: If the issuer and the payee are able to reach a compromise settlement, this can lead to the withdrawal of the criminal case. A settlement can be beneficial in resolving the matter amicably and avoiding further legal entanglements.

8. Recent Jurisprudence and Legal Developments

Recent rulings from the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies have provided additional clarity on the application of BP 22. Courts have increasingly recognized that the primary objective of the law is to protect financial transactions and commercial dealings, not to unduly penalize individuals for unintentional mistakes. As a result, there has been a trend toward imposing fines rather than imprisonment in cases where the amount involved is relatively minor, and there is no evident intent to defraud.

Moreover, there has been greater emphasis on the principle of fairness in BP 22 cases. Courts have been known to give weight to the good faith of the issuer, especially when the check was issued with an honest belief that there were sufficient funds, or when efforts were made to settle the obligation shortly after the check was dishonored.

In conclusion, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 remains a critical legal framework in the Philippines for ensuring the integrity of commercial transactions involving checks. However, the law also provides avenues for individuals who may have inadvertently issued bounced checks to defend themselves or resolve the issue amicably. If you are facing a BP 22 case, it is crucial to understand your legal rights and options. By working with a skilled attorney, you can navigate the complexities of the law and achieve a favorable outcome.