Understanding Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22): The Bouncing Checks Law in the Philippines

---

Letter to a Lawyer

[Letter Begins]

Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek your guidance regarding an issue related to Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. I have encountered a situation involving the issuance of a check that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. I wish to better understand the implications of this law, the liabilities it imposes, and any potential remedies or defenses available under Philippine law.

Could you kindly provide a detailed explanation of the legal provisions under BP 22, its procedural aspects, penalties, and the steps one should take if accused of violating it? Additionally, I would appreciate advice on how to properly navigate this situation, ensuring compliance with the law while protecting my rights.

Thank you for your expertise and assistance.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Citizen

[Letter Ends]

---

Comprehensive Legal Article on Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22): The Bouncing Checks Law

Introduction

Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), commonly referred to as the Bouncing Checks Law, was enacted in 1979 to address the proliferation of unfunded checks in Philippine commercial transactions. This law penalizes the issuance of a check that is later dishonored for reasons such as insufficient funds, closed account, or other reasons reflecting the drawer's inability to meet the obligation. Its primary aim is to maintain the integrity of checks as a medium of payment and instill trust in financial dealings.

Key Provisions of BP 22

BP 22 comprises several important elements that define its scope, coverage, and implications:

1. Acts Punishable under BP 22
   The following acts constitute violations under BP 22:

   • Issuance of a check that is dishonored upon presentation for payment due to insufficient funds or credit.
   • Issuance of a check from an account that has been closed by the drawer prior to or after the issuance of the check.

2. Presumptions Under the Law
   BP 22 creates a rebuttable presumption of knowledge and intent to defraud:

   • Knowledge of Insufficient Funds: If a check is dishonored and the drawer fails to make good the amount within five (5) banking days after receiving notice of dishonor, knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed.
   • Intent to Defraud: The intent to defraud is similarly presumed when the drawer is unable to make good on the check within the prescribed period.

3. Penalty Provisions
   The penalties for violating BP 22 include:

   • Imprisonment: A term not exceeding one (1) year for each count of violation.
   • Fine: An amount not exceeding double the value of the check.
   • Combination of Imprisonment and Fine: The court has the discretion to impose both penalties depending on the circumstances.

   The penalties emphasize deterrence and protection of the commercial banking system.

Elements of a BP 22 Violation

For an offense under BP 22 to be established, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:

1. The accused made, drew, or issued a check.
2. The check was presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date of issuance.
3. The check was dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds or a closed account.
4. The drawer, despite notice of dishonor, failed to settle the amount within five (5) banking days.

Jurisdiction

BP 22 cases are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. These courts handle such cases irrespective of the amount involved in the dishonored check.

Procedure for BP 22 Cases

1. Filing of the Complaint
   The payee or holder of the dishonored check may file a criminal complaint with the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor. The complaint must be supported by:

   • The dishonored check.
   • The demand letter sent to the drawer.
   • Proof of service of the demand letter.

2. Preliminary Investigation
   A preliminary investigation is conducted to determine whether probable cause exists to charge the accused in court. Probable cause requires evidence showing that the elements of the offense are present.

3. Arraignment and Trial
   Upon filing of the Information, the accused will be arraigned and enter a plea. The trial proceeds, during which both the prosecution and defense present evidence.

4. Notice of Dishonor
   An essential procedural requirement is the service of a written notice of dishonor to the drawer. The notice must clearly demand payment within five (5) banking days. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the dismissal of the case.

Defenses Available in BP 22 Cases

While BP 22 imposes strict penalties, the accused may raise the following defenses:

1. Absence of Knowledge or Intent to Defraud
   The accused may rebut the presumptions of BP 22 by presenting evidence of lack of knowledge of insufficient funds or intent to defraud.

2. Non-Compliance with Notice Requirement
   If the prosecution fails to prove that a valid notice of dishonor was served, the case may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Check Issued for a Purpose Other Than Payment
   BP 22 only applies to checks issued for payment of obligations. Checks issued for other purposes, such as guarantees, may not fall within the scope of the law.

4. Payment Made Before Filing of the Case
   Settling the obligation before the filing of the complaint can serve as a mitigating circumstance.

Impact of BP 22 on Small Claims

For transactions involving small amounts, BP 22 cases are often intertwined with small claims proceedings. While small claims courts focus on the recovery of money, BP 22 imposes criminal liabilities. The distinction between civil and criminal liabilities must be clearly understood to navigate both remedies effectively.

Notable Jurisprudence

Philippine jurisprudence has significantly shaped the application of BP 22:

• Lozano v. Martinez (1986): Affirmed the constitutionality of BP 22, ruling that it does not violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of debt.
• Gonzales v. Court of Appeals (1999): Emphasized the importance of the notice of dishonor and its proper service to the accused.
• Administrative Circular No. 12-2000: Encouraged courts to impose fines instead of imprisonment, except in cases of clear malice or deceit.

Reforms and Criticisms

Over the years, BP 22 has been the subject of legal and social debates:

1. Decriminalization Proposals: Critics argue that BP 22 criminalizes what is essentially a financial inability, which disproportionately affects the poor. Proposals to decriminalize the law aim to treat bouncing checks as a civil liability.
2. Balance Between Creditor and Debtor Rights: While the law protects creditors, it has also been criticized for its harsh penalties, which may lead to overcrowded jails and prolonged legal battles.

Practical Advice

1. For Payees: Ensure proper documentation of transactions, including copies of the dishonored check and demand letter, and file complaints promptly.
2. For Drawers: Respond immediately to notices of dishonor and settle obligations within the prescribed period to avoid criminal liability.

Conclusion

Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 remains a cornerstone of Philippine commercial law, safeguarding the reliability of checks as a payment instrument. While the law imposes stringent penalties, it also provides safeguards to ensure due process and fair treatment. Stakeholders must be well-informed of their rights and obligations to navigate BP 22 cases effectively, promoting a balanced and trustworthy financial system.