Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.
22)  The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
“An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing
and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient
Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes”
 The subsequent dishonor of the check by
What acts are penalized under the law?
A. Drawing a Check Without Sufficient
Funds (Sec. 1)
1. A person makes or draws and issues any
check
2. The check is made or drawn and issued
to apply on account or for value
3. The person who makes or draws and
issues the check knows 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
4. The 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 valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment
B. Failing to Keep Sufficient to Cover a
Check Issued (Sec. 1, par. 2)
1. A person has sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check
2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or
maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within
90 days from the date appearing
3. The check is dishonored by the drawee
bank
What are the essential elements to be
liable for violation of B.P. 22?
To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the
following essential elements must be
present:
 The making, drawing, and issuance of any
check to apply for account or for value;
issuer that at the time of issue he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of the
check in full upon its presentment; and
the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
Who is liable for violating the bouncing
checks law?
Any person who makes, draws or issues a
worthless check is liable. This includes an
“accommodation party,” or one who signed
the check without receiving value in
exchange or who issues said check for the
purpose of lending his name to some other
person. The accommodation party is liable
even though the holder of the check knew
him to be a mere accommodation party
who did not receive any value therefor.
When the check is issued in behalf of the
corporation or other legal entity, the
person whose signature appears on the
check is liable.
When is the drawer of the check presumed
to know there is insufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank?
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 five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not bee paid by
the drawee.
What should the drawee do once the
check bounces? (Sec. 3)
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 thereon, or attached thereto,
the written, printed, or stamped in plane
language reason for drawee’s dishonor or
refusal to pay the same: Provided, That
where there are no insufficient 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 therefor
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.
Notwithstanding 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.
Is a notice of dishonor an indispensable
requirement in a prosecution for violation
of B.P. 22?
A notice of dishonor is not indispensable as
it is not an element of the offense.
However, evidence that a notice of
dishonor has been sent to and received by
the accused is actually sought as a means to
prove the second element, such that the
absence of sufficient proof of receipt
thereof can be fatal in the prosecution’s
case. (Jesusa T. Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No.
163494, August 3, 2016)
Based on Section 2 of B.P. 22, the
presumption that the issuer had knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds is brought into
existence only after it is proved that the
issuer had received a notice of dishonor and
that within five days from receipt thereof,
he failed to pay the amount of the check or
to make arrangements for its payment. The
presumption or prima facie evidence as
provided in this section cannot arise, if such
notice of non-payment by the drawee bank
is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if
there is no proof as to when such notice
was received by the drawer, since there
would simply be no way of reckoning the
crucial 5-day period. (Yu Oh v. CA, 451 Phil.
380 (2003)
This requirement cannot be taken lightly
because Section 2 provides for an
opportunity for the drawer to effect full
payment of the amount appearing on the
check, within five banking days from notice
of dishonor. The absence of said notice
therefore deprives an accused of an
opportunity to preclude criminal
prosecution. In other words, procedural
due process demands that a notice of
dishonor be actually served on petitioner.
(Yu Oh v. CA, 451 Phil. 380 (2003)
How should a notice of dishonor be served
on the drawer?
This may be done personally or by mail.
However, note that when the notice of
dishonor is served by mail, it is not enough
to simply present the letter with a registry
receipt or return card as evidence that a
notice of dishonor has been served.
What evidence is needed to prove receipt
of notice of dishonor?
It is not enough for the prosecution to
prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to
the petitioner. It is also incumbent upon the
prosecution to show “that the drawer of
the check received the said notice because
the fact of service provided for in the law is
reckoned from receipt of such notice of
dishonor by the drawee of the check.”
(Alferez v. People, et al., 656 Phil. 116
(2011)
Registry return cards must be
authenticated to serve as proof of receipt
of letters sent through registered mail.
Mere presentation of a copy of the demand
letter, together with the registry receipt
and the return card, allegedly sent to
petitioner, when no attempt was made to
authenticate or identify the signature on
the registry return card, is not enough.
Receipts for registered letters and return
receipts do not by themselves prove
receipt; they must be properly
authenticated to serve as proof of receipt
of the letter, claimed to be a notice of
dishonor. To be sure, the presentation of
the registry card with an unauthenticated
signature, does not meet the required
proof beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner received such notice. (Alferez v.
People, et al., 656 Phil. 116 (2011)
If the prosecution failed to authenticate
the signature on the return card but the
drawer of the check nevertheless made
efforts to settle the payment subsequent
to the dishonor, is knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds in or credit with the
drawee nevertheless established?
Yes. In Ma. Rosario P. Campos v. People, et
al., G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014,
the accused maintained that her personal
receipt of the notice was not sufficiently
established, considering that only a written
copy of the letter and the registry return
receipt covering it were presented by the
prosecution.
The Court, however, considers Campos’
defense that she exerted efforts to reach an
amicable settlement with her creditor after
the checks which she issued were
dishonored by the drawee bank, BPI Family
Bank. Campos categorically declared in her
petition that, “[she] has in her favor
evidence to show that she was in good faith
and indeed made arrangements for the
payment of her obligations subsequently
after the dishonor of the checks.” Clearly,
this statement was a confirmation that she
actually received the required notice of
dishonor from FWCC. The evidence referred
to in her statements were receipts dated
January 13, 1996, February 29, 1996, April
22, 1998 and May 26, 1998 issued by FWCC
to Campos for payments in various
amounts ranging from P2,500.00 to
P15,700.00. Campos would not have
entered into the alleged arrangements
beginning January 1996 until May 1998 if
she had not received a notice of dishonor
from her creditor, and had no knowledge of
the insufficiency of her funds with the bank
and the dishonor of her checks.
When should a complaint for violation of
B.P. 22 be filed?
The criminal complaint for violation of B.P.
22 must be filed within four (4) years from
the time the checks have been dishonored.
What is the penalty for violation of B.P.
22?
The penalty for violation of B.P. 22 is
imprisonment of at least 30 days but not
more than one (1) year, or a fine of at least
double the amount of the check but not to
exceed PHP 200,000.00. However, under
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
12-2000, the Supreme Court recommended
that fines be imposed instead of a prison
sentence for verdicts involving B.P. 22. This
was later clarified in Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 that
imprisonment is still possible under B.P. 22
verdicts and that if the accused is unable to
pay the fine imposed, subsidiary
imprisonment may still attach.