Batas Pambansa (B.

P) 22

ATTY. IVAN YANNICK S. BAGAYAO CPA, MBA

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 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.
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds:

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 in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.

Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. - Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to
any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision of this Act be declared unconstitutional, the
remaining provisions shall continue to be in force.

Section 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette.1âwphi1

Approved: April 3, 1979.

(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check for value;

(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issuance he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and

(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit (San Mateo v. People, March 6, 2013, G.R. No. 200090).

(4) There must be proof of receipt of a notice of dishonor because it gives the maker,
drawer, or issuer an opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the check and
prevent prosecution (Chua v. People, July 13, 2015, G.R. No. 196853).
 Elements of the Offense

B.P. 22 punishes two acts, to wit: (1) the making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at the time of
issuance that he does not have sufficient funds; or (2) the failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain credit
to cover the full amount of the check.

The elements that constitute the first punishable act under this law are the following:

1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value;

2. That the person knows that at the time of issue, he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check upon its presentment; and

3. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or creditor or
would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
The elements that constitute the second punishable act under this law are the following:

1. That a person has sufficient funds with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check;

2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds to maintain a credit to cover the full amount if presented
within a period of 90 days from the date appearing on the face of the check;

3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank; and

4. After receiving such written notice and demand refuses or fails to pay the value of the check
within five (5) banking days.
Defenses which have acquitted individuals charged with a violation of BP 22.

1) payment of the value of the dishonored check within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor;

2) payment of the value of the check before filing of the criminal case in court;

3) failure to serve a written notice of dishonor of the check to the issuer;

4) novation or change in the underlying obligation of the parties before the filing of the criminal case in court;

5) a stop payment order pursuant to a valid reason such as non-delivery of goods or services; and

6) knowledge by the payee that the check was not supported by sufficient funds when the issuer issued the check.
 Batas Pambansa 22 compared with Estafa:

1. Estafa is a crime against property while a violation of B.P. 22 constitutes a crime against public interest.

2. The former is committed when a person, employing any of the modes enumerated under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, defrauds another. One of the means of committing Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC is
by deceit through the issuance of bouncing checks.

3. B.P. 22 is committed when the offender or the maker of the check issues the same with knowledge that the
fund in the account to which the check will be drawn against is insufficient. Such knowledge of insufficiency of
funds is presumed by the law.

4. The prosecution under BP 22 is not a bar for prosecution for Estafa, and the issuer of the check may be held
liable for one or both crimes, singly or simultaneously when the complaints are filed in separate courts.
B.P. 22 is a special law that makes the mere act of issuing worthless or bum checks a crime, mala
prohibita, regardless if they were made as deposit, guarantee, or evidence of pre-existing debt.
Thus, it penalizes the making, drawing, and issuance of checks that are subsequently dishonored
by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds.

The law is broad enough to include, within its coverage, the making and issuing of a check by
one who has no account with a bank, or where such account was already closed when the check
was presented for payment. (Resterio v. People, G.R. No. 177438, [September 24, 2012], 695
PHIL 693-710)
Estafa is also known as Swindling and is punishable in the Philippines as stated in the Revised Penal
Code.

Estafa can be committed by different forms, to wit:

(1) Estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;

(2) Estafa by means of deceit; and

(3) Estafa through fraudulent means.

The penalty for Estafa was amended by RA 10951 wherein the basis for fines is the increased amount of
fraud.
Elements of the Offense
In General, elements of Estafa or Swindling are:

(1) The accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit;

(2) Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third persons;

(3) Damage or prejudice may consist of: (a) the offended party being deprived of his money of
property as a result of the defraudation; (b) disturbance of property rights; or (3) temporary
prejudice.
Estafa by means of Deceit:
1. By using a fictitious name; By falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, or business or imaginary transactions; or By means of other similar deceits

2. By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business

3. By pretending to have bribed any government employee

4. By postdating or issuing a check without having funds or having insufficient funds

5. By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation without paying therefor, with intent to defraud;
Obtaining credit at establishments by use of any false pretense; or By abandoning or surreptitiously
removing any part of his baggage after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein
without paying
The End!