BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.

22 AND ESTAFA

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. 1âwphi1

Approved: April 3, 1979.

On Estafa
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides as
follows:

“2. By means of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

xxxx

d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender

had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank
and/or payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.”

Elements of Estafa according to Supreme Court Cases

In Iluminada Batac vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191622, 6 June 2018, the
Supreme Court enumerated the elements of estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
RPC, as follows:

“Jurisprudence has consistently held that such estafa consists of the following elements:

(1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at
the time of the postdating or issuance;

(2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the
bank or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; and

(3) the payee has been defrauded. It has been settled in jurisprudence that in the above-
defined form of estafa, it is not the nonpayment of a debt which is made punishable, but the
criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check.Deceit has been defined as “the false
representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct by false or misleading
allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or
is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”(Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)
Articles taken from: https://ndvlaw.com

On BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks

Law
Elements of a Violation of BP 22

A violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (“BP 22”), on the other hand, has the following
elements as discussed by the Court in Erlinda San Mateo vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 200090, 6 March 2013, to wit:

“To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present:

(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;

(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or 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

(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by 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.”

Differences with Estafa and BP 22

Differences in Elements Constituting the Offense

With the foregoing, the elements of estafa are clearly different from the elements of violation
of BP 22. What are the differences then?

In the case of Peter Nierras vs. Judge Dacuycuy,G.R. Nos. 59568-76, 11 January 1990,
the Court laid down the fundamental differences between BP 22 and estafa, to wit:

“What petitioner failed to mention in his argument is the fact that deceit and damage
are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) Revised Penal Code, but are not required in
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check that is
dishonored gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he
issued the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable which is not so under the
Penal Code. Other differences between the two also include the following:

(1) a drawer of a dishonored check may be convicted under Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 even if he had issued the same for a pre-existing obligation, while under Article
315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, such circumstance negates criminal liability; (2)
specific and different penalties are imposed in each of the two offenses; (3) estafa is
essentially a crime against property, while violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is
principally a crime against public interest as it does injury to the entire banking
system; (4) violations of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are mala in se, while
those of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are mala prohibita.(Emphases and underscoring
supplied.)

As to Double Jeopardy

As regards the double jeopardy issue, the Court has settled the same in the case
of Leonora Rimando vs. Spouses Aldaba and People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
203583, 13 October 2014, and the Court had this to say, to wit:

“Owing to such differences, jurisprudence in People vs. Reyes even instructs that the
simultaneous filing of BP 22 and estafa cases do not amount to double jeopardy:

While the filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 and under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
on estafa, may refer to identical acts committed by the petitioner, the prosecution thereof
cannot be limited to one offense, because a single criminal act may give rise to a
multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences between the
elements of an offense is one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be
no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to
identity of elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same
act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the
mere filing of the two (2) sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy.

Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from an identical set of
facts, they nevertheless present different causes of action, which, under the law, are
considered “separate, distinct, and independent” from each other. Therefore, both
cases can proceed to their final adjudication – both as to their criminal and civil
aspects – subject to the prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a ruling in a BP 22
case concerning the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused cannot be given any
bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related estafa case, as in this
instance.” (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)

Thus, being separate, distinct and independent from each other, you can file an Estafa case
and a BP 22 case at the same time.
De-Mystifying the Bouncing Checks
Law (B.P. 22)
A common predicament faced by businessmen is violating the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. Evidently, businessmen issue checks as a matter
of practice, and sometimes when the due dates of these checks fall, either by inadvertence
or unavailable finances, the check bounces.

BP 22 punishes a person for issuing a worthless check. A check is obviously worthless

when, at the time it is encashed for payment, which must be within ninety days from
issuance, it is dishonored by the issuing bank because of insufficient funds, or even when
the account against which the check was drawn was already closed. In any of these cases,
the issuer of the check commits a violation of BP 22, and may be held liable for
imprisonment of thirty days to one year or a fine a double the value of the check or both at
the discretion of the court. Moreover, the issuer of the check may also be liable for
imprisonment, even if only a fine is imposed by the court, if the issuer has no sufficient
property to pay the fine imposed, in which case he or she shall be liable to serve a prison
term at the rate of one day for each eight pesos of the unpaid fine.

Another manner in which a person becomes liable under BP 22 is when the issuer orders
his or her bank to make a stop payment of the check without any valid reason and the
check would have been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had it not been for the stop
payment order given by the issuer.

It must also be remembered that 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.

But the issuer of the check is not left with remedies. Our Supreme Court has sanctioned
numerous defenses which have acquitted individuals charged with a violation of BP 22.
Possible defenses in an indictment include 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.

A violation of BP 22 is not really a wrong in itself or involves wrongful or immoral conduct.

Since committing a violation of BP 22 is not an inherently wrong act, the Supreme Court
has, in numerous cases, merely imposed a penalty of fine, understanding the nature of the
offense and the problems that every businessman encounters.