SECTION 1BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.

22
BP 22 (BOUNCING CHECKS LAW)
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

CHECK- written order instructing a bank to pay a specific amount of money to a named
person/entity.

a. Requisites
Key requisites to constitute a violation:

b. Definition of Checks (Section 186, Negotiable Instruments Law)

CHECK- written order instructing a bank to pay a specific amount of money to a named
person/entity.
Presentment for payment agad (no acceptance)

Must be presented within 180 days otherwise magiging stale (dishonored)

If dishonored after 180 days di na liable for estafa kasi stale na yung check. Bc di na talaga
ihohonor kahit may pondo pa

Under Section 186 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, "a check must be presented for
payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability
thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay." By current banking practice, a check
becomes stale after more than six (6) months, or 180 days.

Check na di nabayaran= dishonored

NOTICE OF DISHONOR- given to drawer

ESTAFA- When received by drawer, he is given 3 days to deposit funds . If after 3 days there
is still no funds, there will be presumption of deceit and pwede makasuhan ng estafa

BP 22

c. Checks without sufficient fund - (Sec. 1)

Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to
apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank 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, shall be punished by imprisonment of not
less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not
more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
court.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient
funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of
ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the
drawee bank.

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who
actually signed the check on behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
Issuing a check without sufficient funds or credit, knowing it will be dishonored, is
punishable by imprisonment (30 days to 1 year), a fine (double the check amount, not
exceeding ₱200,000), or both, at the court's discretion. The same penalty applies if the
issuer initially had sufficient funds but failed to maintain them within 90 days, resulting in
dishonor. If the check is issued by a corporation or entity, the signatories are personally
liable.

d. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds - (Sec. 2)

Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such
bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by
the drawee of such check within (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee.

Prima Facie Evidence of Knowledge:

●​ If a check is presented to the bank within 90 days of its date and is dishonored
(bounced) due to insufficient funds or credit, this is considered prima facie evidence
(sufficient proof unless proven otherwise) that the issuer knew their account did not have
enough funds.

Opportunity to Rectify:

●​ The law gives the check issuer an opportunity to resolve the issue. If the issuer:
○​ Pays the holder (the person who presented the check) the full amount due, or
○​ Makes arrangements with the bank to ensure the check is fully paid within 5
banking days after receiving notice of dishonor, then this prima facie evidence of
knowledge can be rebutted, and they may avoid penalties.

e. Duty of drawee - (Sec. 3)

Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when
refusing to pay the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written, printed,
or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's dishonor or
refusal to pay the same: Provided, That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such
drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. In all
prosecutions under this Act, the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check,
having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon or attached thereto, with the
reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said
check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that
the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee
on such dishonored check.

Not with standing receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice that
there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check, if
such be the fact.

1.​ Unpaid and Dishonored Check as Evidence:

○​ A dishonored check, bearing the bank’s written, printed, or stamped reason for
refusal, serves as prima facie evidence in court. This means it is enough to
prove, unless contradicted, that:
■​ The check was made, issued, and presented to the bank for payment.
■​ The bank dishonored it for the stated reason (e.g., insufficient funds).
■​ The dishonor was legitimate based on the reason provided by the bank.
2.​ Purpose of the Stamping Requirement:
 ○​ The stamping or written reason provides a clear and traceable record of the
dishonor and its cause, preventing disputes or false claims about why the check
was not paid.

Implications:

●​ For the Drawee Bank:

○​ This provision holds banks accountable for accurately documenting the reasons
for dishonor, ensuring fairness and clarity in legal disputes.
●​ For the Issuer:
○​ The stamped or written reason is used as evidence in court to prove the issuer's
failure to meet their obligations.
●​ For the Holder of the Check:
○​ The notice of dishonor strengthens their claim and simplifies the process of
pursuing legal remedies.

f. Credit construed - Sec. 4)

Credit construed. - The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an
arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.

Estafa v BP 22
Cases:
1. Rimando v. Winston. GR No. 203583. 13 October 2014
2. Victor Ting v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140665, November
13, 2000
3. Kenneth Ngo vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155815, July 14, 2004
4. Sonia P. Ruiz vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005
5. Ma. Rosario P. Campos vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014
6. Ariel T. Lim vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190834, November 26, 2014
7. Peter Nierras [Link] C. Dacuycuy. G.R. Nos. 59568-76 January 11, 1990

SECTION 1. Form of negotiable instrument– must conform to ff requirements:

(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise
indicated therein with reasonable certainty.

SECTION 2. Certainly as to sum ; what constitutes.—The sum payable sum is a sum certain
within the meaning of this Act, although it is to be paid—
(a) With interest; or
(b) By stated installments^ or
(c) By stated installments, with a provision that upon default in payment of any installment
or of interest the whole shall become due; or
(d) With exchange, whether at a fixed rate or at the current rate; or
(e) With costs of collection or an attorney's fee, in case payment shall not be made at
maturity.

2 (d) ART 315 of ACT no. 3815 & 385 RA10951

 MALA in SE - Inherently wrong

2 (d) ART 315 of ACT no. 3815 & 385 RA10951 (ESTAFA) SECTION 1 BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22

MALA in SE - Inherently wrong act MALA PROHIBITA- only wrong because the law said so

Mens rea- criminal intent must be present Regardless of intent/ state of mind, it is still wrongful,
Not enough that you did it, but rather wrongful intent must therefore makakasuhan under BP 22
be present

FOR VALUE LANG

ESTAFA- Defrauding someone else through deceit (done Pag nag issue ng check and tumalbog, pwede na makulong
through fraudulent acts) regardless of intent
Issuing or post-dating checks w/o funds or insufficient

To be considered fraud- fraudulent act was performed Check may be issued for value or on account
prior or simultaneous to fraud FOR VALUE- there is no pre-existing obligation (same as
Person washable to obtain goods or services dahil nanloko estafa, simultaneous or before receiving good/service)
sya (if wala yung panloloko di nya makukuha yung ON ACCOUNT- may obligation na pero binayaran mo
goods/services) BINABAWAL AY ANG PANLOLOKO gamit check

COVERS ISSUANCE AND POST-DATING OF CHECKS COVERS ISSUANCE AND POST-DATING OF CHECKS

NOTICE OF DISHONOR- given to drawer NOTICE OF DISHONOR- given to drawer

When received by drawer, he is given 3 days to deposit When received by drawer, he is given 5 banking days to
funds . If after 3 days there is still no funds, there will be deposit funds . If after 5 days there is still no funds, there
presumption of deceit and pwede makasuhan ng estafa will be presumption of knowledge and pwede makasuhan

W/O FUNDS OR W/ INSUFFICIENT FUNDS

RIMANDO V WINSTON
An Information dated January 21, 2004, was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
charging Leonora B. Rimando (Rimando) with the crime of estafa through false manifestations
and fraudulent representations. The case stemmed from an investment agreement involving
respondents-spouses Winston and Elenita Aldaba (Sps. Aldaba).

ISSUES
Rimando enticed Aldaba into investing ₱500,000 in her business, promising an 8% monthly
interest. Rimando gave them three postdated checks (₱500,000 and two ₱40,000 checks) and
had them sign an investment contract with Multitel International Holding Corporation.
However, when the checks matured, they bounced due to insufficient funds. Sps. Aldaba
demanded payment, but Rimando failed to fulfill her obligation, prompting them to file an estafa
case.

In her defense, Rimando denied being friends with Sps. Aldaba or owning a business. She
claimed she merely referred them to Multitel's investment manager and issued the checks as
accommodation while awaiting Multitel's payment. She alleged that Sps. Aldaba refused
Multitel's issued check to hold her personally liable.

Separately, Sps. Aldaba filed a case against Rimando for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(BP 22) (bouncing checks). On July 7, 2010, Rimando was acquitted in the BP 22 case due to
reasonable doubt, with the court declaring that no act or omission giving rise to liability existed.
1. Rimando v. Winston, GR No. 203583, 13 October 2014 DENIED

Facts:
- Leonora B. Rimando was charged with estafa for allegedly convincing spouses Winston and
Elenita Aldaba to invest ₱500,000 in her business, promising an 8% monthly return.
- The Aldabas issued a check for ₱500,000, which Rimando later dishonored.
- Rimando was acquitted of estafa due to insufficient evidence.
- Despite the acquittal, the court held Rimando civilly liable for the amount invested, as she
was considered an accommodation party to the dishonored check.

- Issue:
- Can a person be held civilly liable for a dishonored check even after being acquitted of
estafa?

- Ruling:
- Yes, a person can be held civilly liable for a dishonored check even after an acquittal in a
criminal case.
- The acquittal in the estafa case does not preclude civil liability arising from the dishonored
check.
- Rimando was found to be an accommodation party to the dishonored check and was ordered
to pay the Aldabas the amount of their investment.

2. Victor Ting v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140665,
November 13, 2000 GRANTED

Facts:
- Victor Ting "Seng Dee" and Emily Chan-Azajar were charged with seven counts of violating
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing checks that were dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- The checks were issued in connection with loans obtained by Juliet Ting "Chan Sioc Hiu"
(Victor Ting's wife and Emily Chan-Azajar's sister) from private complainant Josefina K. Tagle.
- The trial court convicted the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision,
acquitting them due to insufficient evidence.

- Issue:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in acquitting the petitioners of the charges under B.P. Blg.
22?

- Ruling:
- Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct in acquitting the petitioners.
- The prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners had knowledge of the insufficiency of
funds at the time the checks were issued.
- Without evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds, the elements of the offense under B.P.
Blg. 22 were not established.
- Therefore, the acquittal of the petitioners was upheld.

3. Kenneth Ngo vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155815, July 14, 2004 DENIED

- imprisonment 8 months, indemnify paul in behalf of NHD 75k w/interest from march 14 1989
until fully paid, fine of 2k & pay 18k atty fees 18,200, 18,201, 18,202 eto ung kahatulan ni
kenneth bago sya mag petition
- may 8 postdated checks si kenneth na ginawa for utang sa NHDC wc is ung 5checks ay
nahonor sa equitable banking corp but 3 checks is dishonored for payment. sa tatlong checks,
CA ruled na all elements of violation of bp22 sa 18200-18201 is proven beyond reasonable
doubt thus yung imprisonment don sa mga punishment is deleted so fine nalang na 150k and
imprisonment pag insolvent. dahil no written notice of dishonor had been sent to petitioner sa
isang checke; CA acquitted him sa crim case 18202
- KASO CA’s ruling petition is devoid merit hindi nito naipakita ang sapat na dahilan para
baguhin o baligtarin ang naunang desisyon, parang sinasabi ng korte na walang "bigat" o
saysay ang reklamo o paliwanag dahil hindi raw tugma ang impormasyon at ebidensya
4. Sonia P. Ruiz vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005
DENIED
- Ruiz issued check for 184k as payment for loans but dishonored because account was closed.
sinasabi ni ruiz (petitioner) na di sha owner and maker of dishonored check and di sya may ari
nung bank and ginawa lang nya check as a help kay mendoza dahil may problem sha sa
insurance payment parang accomodation purposes lang. but rtc rejects bcoz issuance of
bouncung checks is kabSligtaran sa purpose ng bp22 to prevent checks useless. no
communication with the bank and only the accuses appellant a complete stranger who signed.
mali panrin kasi wala nman palang laman ung bank or credit but still issues a check. it is an act
of issuing a worthless check. i ruiz drew and delivered thr check in payment of a loan 184k in
favor of priv complainant. the purpose of bp22 is punish is the issuance itself of bouncing check
- FINE 200k imprisonment if insolvent & pay 184k and costs kay mendoza sept 24 1997

5. Ma. Rosario P. Campos vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187401, September 17,
2014 DENIED
- Nag loan si Ma. Rosario Campos, payable on installments, from the First Women’s Credit
Corporation (FWCC) na nagkakahalaga ng 50k. Nag-issue siya ng several postdated checks in
favor of FWCC para pambayad. Yung 14 is drawn against her Current Account na-dishonored
prinisent na for payment. The reason was “closed account” na raw ito, and after nya mag failed
na i-satisfy ung outstanding obligation nya with FWCC despite demand, kinasuhan siya ng
violation sa BP 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court. Hindi siya dumalo sa hearing so
nag-render ng decision yung MeTC which she was convicted of 14 counts of violations of BP
22, and was sentenced to suffer 6 months of imprisonment for each violation and to pay the sum
of P46,666.62 representing the total value of the checks plus legal interest from date of default
until full payment.

- Nag-appeal si Campos sa RTC but the RTC affirm the decision of MeTC. She filed a motion for
reconsideration pero dininied din for lack of merit. Kaya nag appealed sya sa CA, pero
inaffirmed din ng CA ung ruling ng RTC.

ISSUE
1. Whether yung demand letter na pinasa through registered mails is sufficient para masatisfy
ung requirements ng BP 22 as to knowledge of the fact of the dishonor of the subject checks.

2. Whether yung lack of information about the dishonor and the subsequent payment
arrangement ni Campos constitute of good faith.

- Sabi ni Campos na yung notice raw na pinadala via registered email ay hindi niya natanggap.
Ang sabi naman ng court na in-admit daw ni Campos na natanggap niya yung notice through
her statements regarding sa efforts nya to settle with FWCC, hindi rin daw niya napatunayan na
meron siyang ginawang arrangement para makapagbayad, at yung hindi niya raw pagpunta sa
hearing ay nag-waive sa right niya to present evidence, and the court found no reason to
reverse the CA’s decision. So the petition was denied and the court affirmed Campos’
conviction.

6. Ariel T. Lim vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190834, November 26, 2014
REVERSED & SET ASIDE and made Lim ACQUITTED
Facts:
- Ariel T. Lim gave two checks, each worth ₱100,000, to Willie Castor as donations for the 1998
elections.
- Castor used these checks to pay for printing materials.
- However, there was a delay in the delivery of the materials, so Castor told Lim to cancel the
checks, making them worthless (bounced).
- Magna B. Badiee, the payee, sent Lim demand letters asking for payment.
- Lim later issued a new check to replace the bounced one, and Badiee successfully cashed it.
- Despite paying the amount, criminal charges were filed against Lim for violating (B.P. 22),
which is the law against issuing checks without enough funds. “Thus, the checks were
dishonored by the bank because of said order and during trial, when the bank officer was
presented on the witness stand, he admitted that said checks were drawn against insufficient
funds (DAIF).”

Issue:
- Is paying the bounced checks before the charges were filed a valid reason to cancel the
charges under B.P. 22?

Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that Lim was acquitted, meaning he was found not guilty.
- The Court said that B.P. 22 is meant to stop people from issuing bad checks, but it doesn't
punish those who fix the problem (pay the amount) before being charged.
- Since Lim paid the full amount of the checks before the case was filed, the Court decided there
was no need for criminal punishment, and they canceled the lower court’s decision.

7. Peter Nierras vs. Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy. G.R. Nos. 59568-76 January 11, 1990
DISMISSED

Facts:
- Peter Nierras issued nine bouncing checks.
- He was charged with estafa (a crime against property) and for violating *B.P. Blg. 22* (a crime
against public interest).
- Estafa involves deceit and damage, and requires intent to defraud.
- B.P. Blg. 22 is a mala prohibita crime (illegal due to law, regardless of intent), while estafa is a
mala in se crime (inherently wrong, involving deceit).
- Nierras argued that being charged for both crimes was double jeopardy, but the judge denied
his request.

- Issue
- Can Nierras be charged separately for estafa and violating B.P. Blg. 22 for the same checks?

- Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy does not apply.
- The rule on double jeopardy prohibits being tried twice for the same offense. Since estafa and
B.P. Blg. 22 are different offenses with different elements, the case does not violate double
jeopardy.
- Nierras can be tried for both charges.