For a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.

22 to be committed, the following 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
there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of such check in full upon is 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  (Sycip, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No.
125059, March 17, 2000).

EUMELIA R. MITRA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FELICISIMO S.

TARCELO, G.R. NO. 191404, JULY 5, 2010

BP 22 OR THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW WAS ENACTED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF THE CONTINUED ISSUANCE AND CIRCULATION OF UNFUNDED
CHECKS BY IRRESPONSIBLE PERSONS. TO STEM THE HARM CAUSED BY THESE BOUNCING
CHECKS TO THE COMMUNITY, BP 22 CONSIDERS THE MERE ACT OF ISSUING AN UNFUNDED
CHECK AS AN OFFENSE NOT ONLY AGAINST PROPERTY BUT ALSO AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER.
[4]  THE PURPOSE OF BP 22 IN DECLARING THE MERE ISSUANCE OF A BOUNCING CHECK
AS MALUM PROHIBITUM IS TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER IN ORDER TO DETER HIM AND OTHERS
FROM COMMITTING THE OFFENSE, TO ISOLATE HIM FROM SOCIETY, TO REFORM AND
REHABILITATE HIM, AND TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL ORDER.[5]  THE PENALTY IS STIFF. BP 22
IMPOSES THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS OR A FINE OF UP TO
DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK OR BOTH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE. 

SPECIFICALLY, BP 22 PROVIDES:

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 FIVE (5) BANKING DAYS AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE THAT SUCH
CHECK HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY THE DRAWEE.

In King vs. People [G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999], this Court, through Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban, held:  “To hold a person liable under B.P. Blg. 22, it is not
enough to establish that a check issued was subsequently dishonored.  It must
be shown further that the person who issued the check knew ‘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.’ Because this element involves
a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of the law creates a prima
facie presumption of such knowledge, as follows:

‘SEC. 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 five (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.’’’

Thus, this Court further ruled in King, [319 SCRA 669 (1999)]. “in order to create
the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be
shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days
thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its
payment.”

Indeed, the prima facie presumption in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 “gives the accused an

opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the check and thus avert prosecution.”
[319 SCRA 668 (1999)]. This opportunity, as this Court stated in Lozano vs. Martinez,
[146 SCRA 324 (1986)] serves to “mitigate the harshness of the law in its application.”

In other words, if such notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the
maker or drawer of the bum check, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was
received by the drawer, then the presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in
Section 2  of B.P. Blg. 22 cannot arise, since there would simply be no way of
reckoning the crucial 5-day period.

In the present case, no proof of receipt by petitioner of any notice of non-payment of

the checks was ever presented during the trial.  As found by the trial court itself, “(t)he
evidence however is not clear when Macasieb (private complainant) made the
demands.  There is  no proof  of the date when DANAO received  the demand
letter (Exh. F).”
Obviously, in the instant case, there is no way of determining when the 5-day period
prescribed in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 would start and end.  Thus, the presumption
or prima facie evidence of knowledge by the petitioner of the insufficiency of funds or
credit at the times she issued the checks did not arise.

It is clear that the essential element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit on

the part of petitioner is absent in the case at bar, not having been proved by the
prosecution.   On this ground alone, petitioner should be acquitted.

Again, the ruling of this Court in King bears repeating:

“Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the prosecution must prove not only that the
accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored.  It must also establish that
the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she
failed, within five banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check
the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment.  Absent proof that
the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law cannot prosper.”

In the same vein, we clarified in Lao vs. Court of Appeals [274 SCRA 586 (1997)] that
“(a)lthough the offense charged is a malum prohibitum, the prosecution is not thereby
excused from its responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of
the offense, one of which is knowledge of the insufficiency of funds.”

G.R. No. 163494, August 03, 2016

JESUSA T. DELA CRUZ Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Although a notice of dishonor is not an indispensable requirement in a prosecution for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as it is not an element of the offense, 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. Jurisprudence is replete with cases that underscore the
value of a notice of dishonor in B.P. Blg. 22 cases, and how the absence of sufficient
proof of receipt thereof can be fatal in the prosecution's case.

In Yu Oh v. CA,1 the Court explained that since the second element involves a state of
mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 created a prima
facie presumption of such knowledge, as follows:

SEC. 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 five (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

Based on this section, 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 arrangement 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.47 (Citations omitted)

Further, the Court held:

Indeed, this requirement [on proof of receipt of notice of dishonor] 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. In the case at bar, appellant has a right to demand and the basic postulate
of fairness requires that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to
afford her the opportunity to aver prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.

………

The Court emphasized in Alferez v. People, et al.2 the manner by which receipt of a

notice of dishonor should be established, to wit:
1
451 Phil. 380 (2003).
2
656 Phil. 116 (2011).
In Suarez v. People, x x x [w]e explained that:

The presumption arises when it is proved that the issuer had received this notice, and
that within five banking days from its receipt, he failed to pay the amount of the check or
to make arrangements for its payment. The full payment of the amount appearing hi the
check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a complete defense.
Accordingly, procedural due process requires that a notice of dishonor be sent to and
received by the petitioner to afford the opportunity to aver prosecution under B.P. Blg.
22.

x x x. [I]t 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.["]

A review of the records shows that the prosecution did not prove that the petitioner
received the notice of dishonor. Registry return cards must be authenticated to
serve as proof of receipt of letters sent through registered mail.

[G.R. No. 134120. January 17, 2005]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LEA SAGAN JULIANO, appellant.

Article 315, paragraph 2 (d), of the Revised Penal Code states:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow:

...

2. By means of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or

simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

...

(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.

The elements of Estafa are as follows: (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 were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; (3) the
payee has been defrauded. Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense
and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneous with, the
issuance of the bad check. The drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from
receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check, otherwise, a  prima
facie presumption of deceit arises.