ANTI-BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P.

22)
ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION
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 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. (a) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or (b) would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
*Knowledge of the maker/drawer: 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, be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency
of funds or credit.
Valid Defense-payment; Requirement of Notice: Such maker or drawer will not be liable if he 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.
DUTY OF THE DRAWEE
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 drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the same.
Where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawer bank, such fact shall always be
explicitly stated in the notice of or refusal.
In all prosecutions under BP 22, 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:
1. The making or issuance of said check, and
2. The due presentment to the drawee for payment and
3. The dishonor thereof, and
4. 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.
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.
EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL ON CIVIL LIABILITY
An acquittal does not entail the extinguishment of the civil liability for the dishonored checks. An
acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages.
(Mateo v. People, GR 200090, March 6, 2013)
PENALTY AND PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Penalty:
1. Imprisonment - not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year
2. Fine-not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not exceed
the amount of P200,000; or
3. Both, at the discretion of the court.

1|Page
 Prescriptive period: Prescriptive period of BP 22 Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 prescribes in four (4) years
from the commission of the offense or, if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery
thereof. (People vs. Pangilinan, 687 Phil. 95 2012)
DIFFERENCE WITH ESTAFA BY POST-DATING OR ISSUING A WORTHLESS CHECK
1. GOOD FAITH IS A DEFENSE IN ESTAFA: So that when the accused who issued the check believing
that he would be able to make the corresponding deposit, informed the complainant, when he
sensed that he could not make the deposit, not to present the check to the bank for cancellation,
he could not be held liable for Estafa. (See People vs. Villamando) By informing the payee, there is
no deceit. (Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines vs. Ines Chavez)

In BP Blg. 22, good faith is NOT a valid defense.

2. PAYMENT OF A PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION-NO ESTAFA: If the check is in payment of a pre-existing

obligation there is no deceit and hence, the crime of Estafa cannot exist.

In BP Blg. 22, even if the check is issued to pay a pre-existing obligation, there may still be liability.

3. ESTAFA MAY BE COMMITTED BY MERELY ISSUING A WORTHLESS CHECK - unlike in BP Blg. 22

which requires that the accused BOTH drew and issued the check.

4. PERIOD TO MAKE GOOD THE CHECK - is only 3 days in estafa, but 5 banking days in BP Blg. 22.
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:
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.

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.”

LIABLE FOR BOTH ESTAFA AND BP 22: Under Sec. 5 of BP Blg. 22, the Prosecution thereof shall be
without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the RPC. It is now well settled that a
single act can give rise to Estafa and at the same time to violation of BP Blg. 22.
ILLUSTRATION (ESTAFA AND BP 22): A drew a check for P10,000 and issued the same to B for the
payment of a pre-existing obligation. B then issued said check to C representing the same to be a good
check. The check was later on dishonored for insufficient funds.
A: would not be liable for Estafa since the check was issued for the payment of a pre-existing obligation.
But he is liable for BP Blg. 22 for the making and issuance of a worthless check.
If however, C presented the check for cancellation, deposit or encashment on the 91st day from the date
indicated thereon. A would not be liable anymore.
B: on the other hand, may be liable for estafa but not for BP Blg. 22 since he is not the drawer of the
check but merely issued it.

2|Page