In order to afford protection to business and the public in general, and prevent the

circulation of worthless checks, Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, also known as “An Act
Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit
and For Other Purposes,” was approved in April 1979. The law punishes the acts of making
and issuing a check with knowledge by the issuer that at the time the check is issued, he
does not have sufficient funds, and the failure to keep sufficient funds to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing on
the check.

More than three decades after its enactment, let us examine how the law has evolved
throughout these years.

When BP 22 was passed, many questioned the statute’s validity vis-à-vis the constitutional
guarantee that no person shall be imprisoned for nonpayment of debt. In upholding the
constitutionality of BP 22, the Supreme Court (SC) held that “the gravamen of the offense
punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the nonpayment of an obligation
which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the
public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an
offense against property, but an offense against public order.” (Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No.
L-63419, 18 December 1986)

BP 22 punishes the issuer of the worthless check with imprisonment of not less than 30 days
but not more than one year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount
of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed P200,000 or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Prior to the amendment of BP Blg. 129 by
Republic Act (RA) 7691 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court), the Regional Trial Court may
acquire jurisdiction over BP 22 cases depending on the penalties imposed. However, with the
subsequent amendment by RA 7691, the Metropolitan Trial Court assumes exclusive
jurisdiction over BP 22 cases.

For a time, many were misled that violations of BP 22 have been decriminalized when the SC
rendered decisions modifying the penalties imposed by the lower courts by imposing only
the penalty of fine. (Vaca, et al. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998]
and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines [G. R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000]) In
Administrative Circular 12-2000 issued on November 21, 2000, the SC required all courts and
judges concerned to take note of the policy rendered in those two cases, particularly on the
matter of the imposition of penalties, making it appear that violation of BP 22 would only
merit fines. But the SC was quick to issue another circular, A.M. 00-11-01-SC on February 13,
2001, clarifying that when A.M. 12-2000 was issued, it was not meant to remove imprisonment
as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the
penalties provided for in BP 22. In effect, judges are not directed to impose fine only as
penalty for BP 22, instead they are directed to exercise their sound discretion, and taking into
consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, to determine whether the imposition
of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether non-imposition of
imprisonment would be contrary to the imperatives of justice.

In April 2003 in order to facilitate an expeditious and inexpensive determination of BP 22

cases, the SC had included the violation of BP 22 as one of the cases governed by the Rules
of Summary Procedure. One notable provision under the Summary Procedure is that the
Court shall not order the arrest of a person who was charged except for failure to appear in
Court whenever required.

It is the main intention of the law to make the issuer of a worthless check liable since the
introduction of worthless checks is not just harmful to the innocent payees but the entire
economy, as well. However, one must bear in mind that the mere issuance of a worthless
check would not make one liable for BP 22. It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove not
only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored, but it must be
established that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored. The
Notice of Dishonor must be in writing. A mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of a check
is not enough to convict him with violation of BP 22. (Bax v. People, G.R. No. 149858, 5
September 2007)

Aside from threat of imprisonment that an issuer of a bum check may face, he shall, after
conviction, be disqualified to run for public office for a certain period of time. Under the
Omnibus Election Code, any person who has been sentenced by final judgment for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office. As
held by the SC, violation of BP 22 is considered a crime involving moral turpitude, just like the
crime of embezzlement, forgery, robbery and swindling.

More than three decades after its enactment, does BP 22 still serve its purpose? Does the law
still serve as a deterrent to those unscrupulous issuers of bum checks.

Let us consider these: (1) It is undeniable that what deters a person from committing a crime
is the possibility of arrest and imprisonment. When violation of BP 22 was included in those
governed by the Summary Procedure, a warrant of arrest is not anymore issued when the
case is filed in Court. It is only when the accused fails to appear in Court that a warrant of
arrest may be issued against him; (2) Since the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts have
exclusive jurisdiction over violations of BP 22, no Hold Departure Orders can be issued against
those violators since Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts have no power to issue the same.
Accused under trial can thus easily evade prosecution by leaving the country; and (3) The
aggrieved parties have also failed to pursue the case for BP 22 since the Courts require them
to pay the corresponding filing fees. They need to shell out amounts for filing fees after they
have been duped and victimized with checks, which they cannot encash.

In the end, there appears a need to revisit the provisions of BP 22 and other laws affecting
the same to afford the fullest protection to the public and the economy in general. A check
as a substitute for money plays a vital role in commercial transactions. Any person who
wishes to trample upon the smooth flow of commercial transactions must be held liable.

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22

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.

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.

Approved: April 3, 1979.