BP 22 Bouncing Checks Law

*Checks a written request or order by a depositor called the drawer to a bank, called the
drawee, to pay on encashment a person called a payee, a certain sum of money.
*Bouncing check check that has no funds or credit to cover its amount i.e. DA! "drawn
a#ainst insufficient fund check$ or %&! "no'sufficient fund check$.
*Post dated check one that is dated after it is issued and delivered
*Reason for enactment Art. ()*, +ar , d of the -+. does not include in the crime of
estafa the act of issuin# a bounced check in payment of pre'e/istin# obli#ation.
*Purpose of BP 22 to put a stop to the harmful practice of circulatin# worthless check
which when multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and hurt
the welfare of society and public interest. "+p. vs. 0o1ano$
*Constitutionality 2+ ,, is a fundamental e/ercise by the state of its police power or to
pass laws that will promote health, morals and #eneral welfare of the people. 3hat 2+ ,,
punishes is the issuance of a worthless check and not the non'payment of debt.
' it does not violates the non impairment clause because checks are not merely
contract but are substitute for money. 4hey form part of the bankin# system and not entirely
free from the re#ulatory power of the state.
*Checks covered ' present'dated or post' dated, issued to apply on account "to pay a pre'
e/istin# obli#ation$, or for value "#iven in mutual or simultaneous e/chan#e for somethin# of
value$, #uarantee, accommodation or deposit checks, memorandum and a forei#n checks
Acts Punished
). ssuin# any check to apply on account or for value, knowin# at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds with the d bank for payment of such checks upon
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Elements
). A person issues any check.
,. .heck is made to apply on account or for value.
(. 4he person knows at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds with the
bank.
5. 4he check is subsequently dishonored, or would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
,. 6avin# sufficient funds with the bank when he issues a check, but failed to keep sufficient
funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of 78 days from the
date appearin# thereon for which reason it is dishonored by the bank.
Elements
). 4he person has sufficient funds in the bank when he issues a check.
,. 6e fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within 78
days from the date thereon.
(. 4he check is dishonored.
Page 1 of 4
*Imposable Penalties
). mprisonment of not less than (8 days but not e/ceedin# ) year.
,. !ine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which shall not to
e/ceed +hp ,88,888
(. 2oth imprisonment and fine.
*Circular # 2!2"""
' if there is #ood faith or a clear mistake on the part of the accused and he is a first
time offender or the issuance of the check was the offshoot of a le#itimate business
transaction, imposition of fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty.
*Circular ##!2""
' t clarifies that circular 9 ),',888 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative
penalty for violations of 2+,,. t also stated that circular 9),',888 does not remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty but merely lays down a rule of preference in the
application of the penalties.
*Persons $iable
Personal checks the si#natory or the si#natories
Corporate checks the person or persons who actually si#ned the bounced check.
0ina 0im 0ao vs. .ourt of Appeals the &. underscored the point that bein# a si#natory to
the dishonored corporate checks nearly en#enders the prima facie presumption that as
officer of the corporation, the accused who co'si#ned the check knew of the insufficiency of
funds. t does not, however, make the accused automatically #uilty under 2+,,.
*Rule on %otice of &ishonor
Corporate checks -esponsibilities under 2+,, is personal to the accused so that the
latter:s own knowled#e of the dishonor is necessary. .onstructive notice to the corporation,
as when the demand was sent to the main and not to its e/tension office where the accused
was on field duty is not enou#h to satisfy due process. %otice to the corporation which has a
personality distinct and separate from the officer who issued the check is not tantamount to
notice to the latter. "0ina 0im 0ao vs. .A$
4he insufficiency of funds shall be e/plicitly stated in the dishonor, hence, a mere oral notice
or demand to pay is sufficient for conviction under 2+,, "Doma#san# vs. .A$
A si#natory to the check who was not informed of the dishonored is not liable.
*'()ER %'(E*
2+ ,, complaints are filed before the ;4. and ;c4. and do not need preliminary
investi#ations. "&. A; %o. 88'))'8)'sc< &ec ), par. 2"5$, -evised -ule on &ummary
+rocedure$
4he court shall not order the arrest of the accused e/cept for failure to appear whenever
required. "&ec. )=, -evised -ule on &ummary +rocedure$
6old'departure orders shall be only issued within the e/clusive >urisdiction of the -4..
"?.A .ircular %o. (7'7@$
&octrine of continuous transaction if there is a previous transaction between the
accused and the complainant prior to the issuance of the bounced check, deceit is ne#ated
and there can be no estafa, only violations of 2+ ,,.
Page 2 of 4
f the complainant parted with his property to the accused not because of any other
consideration but because of the check issued by the accused which later bounced, Astafa
under -+. is committed.
*+alid &efenses against BP 22
$ack of notice of &ishonor failure to notify the accused of the dishonor of the
checks will defeat the presumption of knowled#e of insufficiency of funds.
,orgery a check is for#ed when the si#nature appearin# thereon was mode
without the authority of the person whose si#nature appears it. n the case of +%2 vs. .A,
the &. decided that the dishonor of a check is a defense when the stop payment requested
by the drawer was due to for#ery in the endorsement of a lost check.
Prescription termination of the ri#ht or power to prosecute or punish the offender
after the lapse of a definite period from the commission of the crime, or if not known, from
the day of its discovery. 2+,, prescribes after 5 years be#innin# from the lapse of *
bankin# days from notice of dishonor.
&uplicity of 'ffense a sin#le information char#es more than one offense.
Duplicity is a defense in 2+ ,, if there is also an information for estafa that embodies all the
elements of any of the offenses punishable under 2+,,.
,ailure to bring the accused for trial -ithin the time limit set by the *peedy
(rial Act and Rules of Criminal Procedure. "-ule ))7, &ec 7, -ules of .riminal
+rocedure$
,ailure to present the checks for payment -ithin ." days from the date of
issue/
$ack of the necessary *ignature0s as to corporate, association or partnership
check wherein particular officers are authori1ed si#natories, proof that not all of such
authori1ed si#natories or less that that required have si#ned the check is a defense. 4he
incompleteness or unauthori1ed drawin# of the check did not make the check a valid order
to the bank to pay. As a result, the drawer is not under obli#ation to deposit or maintain
sufficient funds for its payment.
&ishonor -ith a mere stamp in the check 1stop payment2 the bank is directed
as well to state in the notice of dishonor even a#ainst a stop payment that there were no
sufficient funds in or credit with it to pay the check.
$ack3 or illegal consideration in the issuance of the check the &upreme .ourt
held in the case of #os vs. .ourt of Appeals that malice or intent is immaterial, the offense
bein# malum prohibitum, could not be an absolute proposition without desendin# to
absurdity. Also in the earlier case of ;a#no vs. .ourt of Appeals, the &. will not limit itself
to determinin# the commission of the prohibited act. t must #o one step backward by
ascertainin# the nature of the transaction under which the check was issued not only to find
out if the same was drawn for an actual valuable consideration, but also to determine, who,
between the drawer and the payee, is the actual and potential wron#'doer. 6ence, if a
check were issued by a kidnap victim to the kidnapper for ransom, it would be unseemly to
hold the drawer liable if the check was dishonored and unpaid.
CASES
*Lozano vs. Martinez' the #ravamen of the offense punishable by 2+ ,, is the act of makin#
and issuin# a worthless check. t is not the non'payment of an obli#ation which the law
punishes. 4he law is not intended to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.
'the freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom to enter into
lawful contracts. .ontract which contravenes public policy are not lawful. .hecks cannot be
Page 3 of 4
cate#ori1ed as mere contracts. t is a commercial instrument which forms part of the
bankin# system and therefore not entirely free from the re#ulatory power of the state.
*Vaca vs. Court of Appeals' refer to circular 9 ),',888 and circular 9)(',88)
*Lim vs. Court of Appeals' there are certain crime in which some acts material and essential
to the crimes and requisite to the consummation occurs in one place and some in another.
4hese are the so'called transitory or continuin# crime under which the violation of 2+ ,, is
cate#ori1ed.
*Vallarta vs. Court of Appeals' if the sale of >ewelry, for instance, was on sale on approval,
ownership posses to the buyer upon its delivery. A check issued simultaneously with the
delivery of the >ewelry is not deemed as payment of a pre'e/istin# obli#ation but issued for
value. .omplainant parted with the >ewelry to the accused not because she is rich but
because of the check issued by the accused which later bounced. Astafa under -+. is
committed.
BP 22 ESTAFA
.rime a#ainst public interest
;ere issuance of a bounced check
!ailure of the drawer to settle the
amount within * bankin# days is
conclusive evidence of knowled#e
of insufficient funds
-ules on summary procedure
;4., ;.4.
;alum prohibitum
t covers post'dated, present dated
checks, check issued to apply on
account "to pay a pre'e/istin#
obli#ation$, or for value.
.rime a#ainst property
Deceit is essential, also dama#e
!ailure of the drawer to settle the
account within ( days is conclusive
evidence of deceit
-ules of .riminal +rocedure
-4.
;ala in se
t only covers post'dated checks and
checks issued for value or #iven in
mutual or simultaneous e/chan#e for
somethin# of value.
Page 4 of 4