lOMoARcPSD|7329340
BP 22
BS Accountancy (Saint Louis University Philippines)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
BP 22 Bouncing Checks Law
“An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes”
 approved on April 3, 1979
Checks – a written request or order by a depositor called the “drawer” to a bank, called the “drawee,” to pay on demand a person called
a “payee” a certain sum of money
Bouncing check – check that has no funds or credit to cover its amount i.e. DAIF (drawn against insufficient fund check) or NSF
(no-sufficient fund check).
Bouncing Check - a check issued for valuable consideration but when presented for payment on its due date, the check is dishonored
for insufficiency of funds or because the account is closed.
Insufficient fund
if the amount of the check is bigger than the balance of fund which is used to pay the check; insufficient of fund to pay the
amount stated in the check
Account is closed
if one opens a checking account, he is now a current account holder. On a current day, one must maintain a sufficient fund in
order to consider such account valid or active. If one cannot put up the minimum maintaining balance despite notice to him,
then the bank will consider such account as closed; or one uses the remaining check in the booklet even if the deposit is
exhausted
Post dated check – one that is dated after it is issued and delivered / check that has a date later than its actual date of issue
Reason for enactment – Art. 315, Par2d of the RPC does not include in the crime of estafa the act of issuing a bounced check in
payment of pre-existing obligation
Purpose of BP 22 – to put a stop to the harmful practice of circulating worthless check which when multiplied a thousand-fold, can very
well pollute the channels of trade and hurt the welfare of society and public interest. (Pp. vs. Lozano)
Constitutionality – BP 22 is a fundamental exercise by the state of its police power or to pass laws that will promote health, morals and
general welfare of the people. What BP 22 punishes is the issuance of a worthless check and not the non-payment of debt.
- it does not violate the non – impairment clause because checks are not merely contracts but are substitute for money. They form
part of the banking system and not entirely free from the regulatory power of the state.
Checks covered - present-dated or post-dated, issued to apply on account (to pay a pre-existing obligation), or for value (given in
mutual or simultaneous exchange for something of value), guarantee, accommodation or deposit checks, memorandum and foreign
checks
A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word "Memorandum", "Memo", or "Mem" written across the face, signifying that
the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is
a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
Duty of the Drawee
•
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
•
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.
•
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.
1.
2.
Acts Punished

Issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds with the bank for
payment of such checks upon presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or would have
been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment

Elements (First Offense)
1. A person issues any check.
2. Check is made to apply on account or for value.
3. The person knows at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds with the bank.
4. The check is subsequently dishonored, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Having sufficient funds with the bank when he issues a check, but failed to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon for which reason it is dishonored by the bank.

Elements (Second Offense)
1. The person has sufficient funds in the bank when he issues a check.
2. He fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within 90 days from the date
thereon.
3. The check is dishonored.
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
1
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
Imposable Penalties (Update: RA 10951)
 Imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not exceeding 1 year.
 Fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which shall not exceed Php 200,000
 Both imprisonment and fine.
Circular # 12-2000 (not a defense but may mitigate liability)
- if there is good faith or a clear mistake on the part of the accused and he is a first-time offender or the issuance of the check was the
offshoot of a legitimate business transaction, imposition of fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty.
Circular #13-2001
- It clarifies that circular # 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of BP22. It also stated that
circular #12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty but merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of
the penalties.
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.
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.
Persons Liable
Personal checks – the signatory or the signatories
Corporate checks – the person or persons who actually signed the bounced check.


Lina Lim Lao vs. Court of Appeals – the SC underscored the point that being a signatory to the dishonored corporate checks nearly
engenders the prima facie presumption that as officer of the corporation, the accused who co-signed the check knew of the insufficiency
of funds. It does not, however, make the accused automatically guilty under BP22.
Rule on Notice of Dishonor
Corporate checks – Responsibilities under BP22 is personal to the accused so that the latter’s own knowledge of the dishonor is
necessary. Constructive notice to the corporation, as when the demand was sent to the main and not to its extension office where the
accused was on field duty is not enough to satisfy due process. Notice to the corporation which has a personality distinct and separate
from the officer who issued the check is not tantamount to notice to the latter. (Lina Lim Lao vs. CA)

The insufficiency of funds shall be explicitly stated in the dishonor, hence, a mere oral notice or demand to pay is insufficient for conviction
under BP 22 (Domagsang vs. CA)

A signatory to the check who was not informed of the dishonor is not liable.
OTHER NOTES
A. BP 22 complaints are filed before the MTC and McTC and do not need preliminary investigations. (SC AM No. 00-11-01-SC; Sec 1,
par. B (4), Revised Rule on Summary Procedure)
B.
The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. (Sec. 16, Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure)
C.
Hold-departure orders shall be only issued within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. (OCA Circular No. 39-97)

Doctrine of continuous transaction – if there is a previous transaction between the accused and the complainant prior to the issuance
of the bounced check, deceit is negated and there can be no estafa, only violation of BP 22.

If the complainant parted with his property to the accused not because of any other consideration but because of the check issued by the
accused which later bounced, Estafa under RPC is committed.
Valid Defenses against BP 22
1. The subject was NOT made drawn and issued by petitioner in EXCHANGE FOR VALUE as received as to qualify it as a check on
account or for value.
2. There is NO sufficient basis to conclude that petitioner at the time of issue of the check had actual knowledge of the sufficiency of
funds.
3. Lack of notice of Dishonor – failure to notify the accused of the dishonor of the checks will defeat the presumption of knowledge
of insufficiency of funds.
*not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability
4. There was NO check actually served on petitioner payee
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
2
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The amount appearing in the check is FULLY PAID within five banking days from notice of dishonor
Complainant knew at the time the accused issued the checks that the latter did not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover the
same (estoppel)/ Knowledge by the payee that the check was not supported by sufficient funds when the issuer issued the check
Forgery – a check is forged when the signature appearing thereon was mode without the authority of the person whose signature
appears it.
 In the case of PNB vs. CA, the SC decided that the dishonor of a check is a defense when the stop payment requested by the
drawer was due to forgery in the endorsement of a lost check.
Prescription – termination of the right or power to prosecute or punish the offender after the lapse of a definite period from the
commission of the crime, or if not known, from the day of its discovery. BP 22 prescribes after 4 years beginning from the lapse of 5
banking days from notice of dishonor.
Duplicity of Offense – a single information charges more than one offense. Duplicity is a defense in BP 22 if there is also an
information for estafa that embodies all the elements of any of the offenses punishable under BP22.
Failure to bring the accused for trial within the time limit set by the Speedy Trial Act and Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(Rule 119, Sec 9, Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Failure to present the checks for payment within 90 days from the date of issue.
Lack of the necessary Signature/s – as to corporate, association or partnership check wherein particular officers are authorized
signatories, proof that not all of such authorized signatories or less that that required have signed the check is a defense. The
incompleteness or unauthorized drawing of the check did not make the check a valid order to the bank to pay. As a result, the drawer
is not under obligation to deposit or maintain sufficient funds for its payment.
Dishonor with a mere stamp in the check “stop payment” – the bank is directed as well to state in the notice of dishonor even
against a “stop payment” that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with it to pay the check.
Lack, or illegal consideration in the issuance of the check – the Supreme Court held in a case that malice or intent is
immaterial, the offense being malum prohibitum, “could not be an absolute proposition without descending to absurdity.” Also, in the
case of Magno vs. Court of Appeals, the SC will not limit itself to determining the commission of the prohibited act. It must go one
step backward by ascertaining the nature of the transaction under which the check was issued not only to find out if the same was
drawn for an actual valuable consideration, but also to determine, who, between the drawer and the payee, is the actual and
potential wrongdoer. Hence, if a check were issued by a kidnap victim to the kidnapper for ransom, it would be improper to hold the
drawer liable if the check was dishonored and unpaid.
Stop payment order pursuant to a valid reason such as non-delivery of goods or services
Novation or change in the underlying obligation of the parties before the filing of the criminal case in court
Payment of the value of the check before the filing of the criminal case in court. - *it was redeemed by the accused
Payment of the value of dishonored check within five (5) banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor.
Where what was stamped on the check is “DAUD” meaning drawn against uncollected deposits, the bank may still honor the check at its
discretion in favor of favored clients, in which case there would be no violation of BP 22.
 Uncollected deposits are not the same as insufficient funds.
CASES
*Lozano vs. Martinez- the gravamen of the offense punishable by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check. It is not the
non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.
-the freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom to enter into lawful contracts. Contract which contravenes
public policy are not lawful. Checks cannot be categorized as mere contracts. It is a commercial instrument which forms part of the
banking system and therefore not entirely free from the regulatory power of the state.
*Vaca vs. Court of Appeals- refer to circular # 12-2000 and circular #13-2001
*Lim vs. Court of Appeals - there are certain crimes in which some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to the
consummation occurs in one place and some in another. These are the so-called transitory or continuing crime under which the violation
of BP 22 is categorized.
*Vallarta vs. Court of Appeals - if the sale of jewelry, for instance, was on sale on approval, ownership posses to the buyer upon its
delivery. A check issued simultaneously with the delivery of the jewelry is not deemed as payment of a pre-existing obligation but issued
for value. Complainant parted with the jewelry because of the check issued by the accused which later bounced. Estafa under RPC is
committed.
What are the elements of estafa through the issuance of bouncing checks?
This form of estafa has the following elements:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued
2. Insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and
3. Damage to the payee thereof.
If any of these elements is not present, then a person cannot be held liable for estafa.
Problem:
Remy went to a boutique to shop for jewelries. Since she is a relative of the store owner, she was allowed to pay later.
After 30 days, Remy issued a check in payment of the clothes she bought. The check bounced to the dismay of the store
owner. Can Remy be held liable for estafa?
No. Remy cannot be held liable for estafa because the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing debt. As mentioned earlier, estafa
through the issuance of a bouncing check can be committed only if the check was issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
3
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
time the check was issued. Note, however, that while there is no estafa, nevertheless, Marian can be held liable for another crime, which
will be discussed below.
Problem:
A, a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A issued a postdated check to be
presented for payment 30 days after the transaction. Two days before the maturity date of the check, A called up B and
told him not to deposit the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A had not deposited in the drawee bank the
amount needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B deposited the check in question and the same was dishonored of
insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the amount with B in spite of the latter's demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg.
22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law?
Yes, A Is liable for violation of BP 22. Although knowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of funds at the time of the issuance
of the check is an essential element of the violation, the law presumes prima facie such knowledge, unless within five (5) banking days of
notice of dishonor or nonpayment, the drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangements for payment in full
by the drawee of such checks. A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity date of the check will not defeat the
presumption of knowledge created by the law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit of BP 22 will be rendered useless.
Can the issuance of bouncing checks give rise to other offense aside from estafa?
Yes. A single act of issuance of bouncing checks may give rise to several offenses such as estafa and violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing
Checks Law.
How is a violation of the Bouncing Checks Law committed?
There are two possible ways by which this can be committed, to wit:
1. Making or drawing and issuing 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
2. 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.
What are the elements of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law?
An offence under this law is committed when the following elements are present:
1. Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
 The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that
is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The mere act of issuing a worthless check – whether as a deposit, as
a guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt – is malum prohibitum.
2. 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 such check in full upon its presentment;
 The prosecution must 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. The notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing.
and
3. 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.
 Under Section 3 of 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 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." For instance, when the prosecution presented the checks which were stamped with
the words “ACCOUNT CLOSED,” supported by the returned check tickets issued by the depository bank stating that the
checks had been dishonored. The documents constitute prima facie evidence that the drawee bank dishonored the
checks, and no evidence was presented to rebut the claim.
How can there be presumption that the maker, drawer, or issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds?
The presumption arises only after it is proved that the issuer received a notice of dishonor and that within 5 days from receipt thereof, he
failed to pay the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment.
Ruiz vs. People, G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005
B.P. 22 covers any check which bounces. It does not matter then that the subject check belongs to the accused or another person. xxx
The mere act of issuing a worthless check, either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a mode
of payment is covered by B.P. 22. It is a crime classified as malum prohibitum. The law is broad enough to include, within its coverage, the
making and issuing of a check by one who has no account with a bank, or where such account was already closed when the check was
presented for payment.
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
4
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
Mitra vs People, G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010
In the case of Llamado v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 99032, March 26, 1997], the Court ruled that the accused was liable on the
unfunded corporate check which he signed as treasurer of the corporation. He could not invoke his lack of involvement in the negotiation
for the transaction as a defense because BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which the check was
issued or in consideration of the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.
BP 22 applies to foreign checks
Under the Bouncing Checks Law, foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the Philippines though payable outside
thereof . . . are within the coverage of said law. [De Villa vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991]
Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds Knowledge on the part of the drawer or maker of the insufficiency of funds or
credit in the drawee bank for the payment of a check upon its presentment is an essential element of the offense. This element involves
a state of the mind of the drawer or maker of the check which is difficult for the prosecution to prove. To ease the burden of the
prosecution, Section 2 of BP 22 created a prima facie presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer or maker of the check of the
insufficiency of his fund in the drawee bank, thus:
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.
However, for the presumption to arise, the prosecution must adduce evidence to prove the factual basis for its onset, namely, (a) the
check is presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check; (b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such
check has not been paid by the drawer; and, (c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check the amount due
thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid
by the drawer.
With the onset of the presumption, the burden of evidence is shifted on the drawer/maker of the check to prove that, when he issued the
subject check, he had no knowledge that he had insufficient funds in the drawee bank to answer for the amount due. The notice of
dishonor may be sent to the drawer or maker by the drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party, either by personal
delivery or by registered mail. The drawer or maker of a check has a right, under the law, to demand that a written notice of dishonor be
sent to and received by him to enable him to avoid indictment for violation of BP22. [Sia vs. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004; Mitra
vs People, G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010]
(a) Notice of dishonor of check must be in writing
The service of the notice of dishonor gives the drawer the opportunity to make good the check within those five days to avert his
prosecution for violating BP 22. [Mitra vs People, G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010]
The notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing.
A mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check is not enough. xxx While, indeed, Section 2 of BP 22 does not state
that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of the law. i.e., "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," a mere oral notice
or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law.
The Court is convinced that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act to be punished thereunder not
only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of
dishonor. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. [Sia
vs. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004 citing Domagsang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000]
Unless and until the drawer or maker of the check receives a written notice of dishonor of the check, or where there is no proof as to when
such notice of dishonor was received by the drawer or maker, the five-day period within which the drawer or maker has to pay the amount
due or made arrangements with the drawee bank for the payment of the check, cannot be determined. In such case, the prima facie
presumption cannot arise. [Sia vs. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004]
(b) Proof of receipt of notice of dishonor
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.
[Danao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122353, June 6, 2001]
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, March 31, 2005; see also Pacheco v. Court of Appeals
A check issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa even if there is no fund in the bank to cover the amount
of the check. xxx There is no estafa through bouncing checks when it is shown that private complainant knew that the drawer did not
have sufficient funds in the bank at the time the check was issued to him. Such knowledge negates the element of deceit and constitutes
a defense in estafa through bouncing checks.
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
5
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
BP 22








ESTAFA
Crime against public interest
Mere issuance of a bounced check
Failure of the drawer to settle the amount within 5 banking
days is conclusive evidence of knowledge of insufficient
funds
Rules on summary procedure
MTC, MCTC
Malum prohibitum
It covers post-dated, present dated checks, check issued to
apply on account (to pay a pre-existing obligation), or for
value.
penalty shall be imprisonment of not less than 30 days but
not more than 1 year, or by a fine of not less than but not
more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall
not exceed P200,000.00, or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court



Crime against property
Deceit is essential, also damage
Failure of the drawer to settle the account within 3 days is
conclusive evidence of deceit




Rules of Criminal Procedure
RTC
Mala in se
It only covers post-dated checks and checks issued for
value or given in mutual or simultaneous exchange for
something of value.
punishable by penalties of imprisonment ranging from 2
months to 8 years depending on the amount of the fraud

BP 22: QUIZZER 1: TRUE or FALSE
1. A check as a substitute for money
2. Another term for bouncing check is “rubber check.”
3. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes for estafa a person who issues a check in payment of an obligation when he had
no funds in the bank sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure to deposit the amount to cover the check within three
days from receipt of notice of dishonor shall be prima facie evidence of deceit.
4. The phrase “in payment of an obligation” “means that the check should not be issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.
5. When a check was issued in payment of a debt contracted prior to such issuance, there is no estafa as deceit should be the efficient
cause of the defraudation.
6. When postdated checks are issued and intended only as promissory notes, there is no estafa.
7. Estafa is punishable by penalties of imprisonment ranging from 2 months to 8 years depending on the amount of the fraud.
8. An offender can be held liable under both Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and BP 22.
9. The prosecution in a BP 22 case must establish that (a) notice of dishonor was sent to the issuer of the dishonored check and (b) that
the same was actually received by the maker or drawer of the dishonored check.
10. Failure to establish that a written notice of dishonor was actually received by the maker or drawer of the check is a ground for an
acquittal.
11. A notice of dishonor may be sent to the maker or drawer of the dishonored check by (1) by personal service upon the issuer or (2) by
registered mail.
12. If the notice of dishonor is sent by registered mail, the fact of sending the notice of dishonor is established by the registry receipt, the
registry return card, and an affidavit executed by the person who mailed the notice of dishonor detailing the circumstances of the
mailing.
13. As to establishing actual receipt, the prosecution must also prove that the signature appearing on the registry return card or notice of
dishonor, in case of personal service, belongs to that of the issuer of the dishonored check or, at the very least, to his duly authorized
agent. In the latter case, the prosecution must establish the capacity and authority of such person as agent.
14. An illegible signature, such as when a recipient merely signs his/ her initials on the registry return card or notice of dishonor, as the
case may be, does not prove that the issuer actually received the notice of dishonor.
15. It is also crucial that the registry return card or the notice of dishonor indicate the date it was received in order to fix the start of the
five (5) day period within which the maker or drawer of the check must pay or make arrangements for the payment of the amount of
the check
16. The notice of dishonor may be sent to the office of the maker or drawer of the dishonored check but he must receive the notice
personally or through his authorized agent.
17. A corporation or an officer of a corporation that receives a notice of dishonor addressed to one of its employees has no obligation to
forward the notice to the employee concerned. Thus, such receipt is not the receipt contemplated by BP 22.
18. A notice of dishonor may also be sent to the residence of the maker or drawer of the dishonored check and received by him/her, the
housemaids or houseboys who are deemed to have a special power-of-attorney to receive mail in behalf of the addressee, or any
member of the family of sufficient age or discretion.
19. The notice of dishonor may be sent to, and received by, the maker or drawer of the dishonored check wherever he may be found as
long as the fact and date of receipt are established.
20. Under the Rules on Summary Procedures, the Court shall not order the arrest of a person who was charged of BP 22 except for failure
to appear in Court whenever required.
21. 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.
22. Violation of BP 22 is considered a crime involving moral turpitude, just like the crime of embezzlement, forgery, robbery and
swindling.
23. No Hold Departure Orders can be issued against BP 22 violators.
24. Pursuing cases for BP 22 requires complainants to pay the corresponding filing fees.
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
6
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
BP 22: QUIZZER 2: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS:
1. Which statement is CORRECT?
A. BP 22 governs the criminal liability arising from the issuance of bounced checks.
B. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which the check was
issued, nor the terms and conditions of its issuance.
C. Both
D. None
2. Which statement is INCORRECT?
A. 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.
B. It is the nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes.
C. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in
circulation.
D. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
3. Which of the following is NOT ONE of the elements of violation of BP Blg. 22?
A. the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value
B. 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
C. 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
D. the subsequent payment by the drawer to the holder of the check after it was dishonored by the drawee bank upon presentment
4. A bounced or worthless check is also known as a
A. Post-dated check
B. Crossed check
C. Bum check
D. Special check
5. Which of the following are checks without sufficient fund, as contemplated by BP Blg. 22.
I.
A check dishonored by the bank upon presentment, due to insufficiency of funds, and the issuer has knowledge of
insufficiency at the time of issue
II.
A check which would have been dishonored for insufficiency, were it not for the drawer’s unjustifiable order to his bank to
stop the payment of the check
III.
A check dishonored for insufficiency when presented for payment within 90 days from issue, even if there was sufficient
fund at the time of issue
A. I and II only
B. I and III only
C. II and III only
D. I, II and III
6. A issued check in favor of B. A knew at the time of issue that the check has no sufficient fund in the drawee bank. Upon presentment
by B, the bank dishonored the check for insufficiency. B filed charges against A for violation of BP 22. A, however, subsequently
issued another check to B in payment of the amount covered by the original check. Can A still be charged with violation of BP 22?
A. No, because the subsequent check cleared the offense
B. No, because there is no more unpaid debt
C. No, because no person shall be imprisoned for debt
D. Yes, because what is punished is the act of issuing a worthless check
7. As used in BP 22, it shall mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment of check.
A. Debit
B. Credit
C. Deposit
D. Withdrawal
8. When a worthless check is issued by a corporate entity, who shall be liable?
A. the shareholders
B. the corporate officers signing the check
C. the Board of Directors
D. no one
9. Persons guilty of issuing checks without sufficient funds face which sanctions?
A. Imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year
B. Imprisonment of not less than 60 days but not more than 2 years
C. Fine equal to the amount of the check
D. 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
E. or both (A and D) such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court
F. B and C
10. 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
A. prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit
B. conclusive evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit
C. indisputable evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit
D. proof beyond reasonable doubt of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
7
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
11. When a check presented has bounced, it is the drawee bank’s duty to
A. initiate the filing of charges against the drawer for violation of BP Blg. 22
B. advise the payee of the check to file charges against the drawer for violation of BP Blg. 22
C. cause to be written, printed, or stamped on the check, in plain language, or attached thereto, the reason for its dishonor or
refusal to pay
D. All of the above
12. What is NOT an element of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law?
A. Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value
B. 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 such check in full upon its presentment
C. The notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing
D. 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
13. I - A single act of issuance of bouncing checks may not give rise to several offenses such as estafa and violation of B.P. 22 or the
Bouncing Checks Law.
II - Even if the criminal case will not prosper, one may still be held liable for the civil aspect, meaning that one has to pay the person
he or she issued the check to – usually with legal interest and other interests that the Court may impose.
A. Both statements are correct.
B. Both statements are incorrect.
C. Only Statement 1 is correct.
D. Only Statement 2 is correct.
14. The following is punishable under BP 22:
I. Any person who makes or draws and issued 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.
II. 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.
A. Only I is true
B. Only II is true
C. Both are true
D. Both are false
15. S1: Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such
drawer shall be liable.
S2: 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.
A. Only I is true
B. Only II is true
C. Both are true
D. Both are false
16. S1: The drawer has the right to order the drawee to stop payment of a check.
S2: If a bank pays a check after it has been notified to stop payment, it pays on its own responsibility and will not be permitted to
charge the account.
A. Only I is true
B. Only II is true
C. Both are true
D. Both are false
17. Which statement is FALSE?
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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 conclusive 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.
D. 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.
E. None of the above
18. In a prosecution for violation of BP 22 –
A. The failure of the defense to prove the existence and receipt by the accused of a written notice of dishonor and that he was given
at least 5 banking days within which to settle the amount of the check constitutes sufficient ground for an acquittal
B. The failure of the prosecution to prove the existence and receipt by the accused of a written notice of dishonor and that he was
given at least five banking days within which to settle the amount of the check constitutes sufficient ground for a conviction
C. The failure of the prosecution to prove the existence and receipt by the accused of a written notice of dishonor and that he was
given at least ten banking days within which to settle the amount of the check constitutes sufficient ground for an acquittal
D. The failure of the prosecution to prove the existence and receipt by the accused of a written notice of dishonor and that he was
given at least five banking days within which to settle the amount of the check constitutes sufficient ground for an acquittal.
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
8
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
(CAPTURE AN IMAGE OF YOUR ANSWER SHEET AND SEND IT TO YOUR RESPECTIVE
TEACHER ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE THROUGH GOOGLE CLASSROOM OR FB GC
Private Message)
NAME OF STUDENT: ___________________________
CLASS CODE: _________________________________
ANSWERS TO THE QUIZZERS: DUE ON MARCH 19, 2020 (THURSDAY: 3PM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
QUIZZER 1: WRITE THE COMPLETE WORD: TRUE or FALSE
9
17
10
18
11
19
12
20
13
21
14
22
15
23
16
24
606 HANDOUT #5 BP 22, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, DATA PRIVACY ACT, E-COMMERCE ACT, EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
9
lOMoARcPSD|7329340
Saint Louis University
School of Accountancy, Management, Computing and Information Studies
Department of Business Laws and Taxation
606 HANDOUT #5 OTHER SPECIAL LAWS
Downloaded by Daphnie Pagulayan (daphnie0429@gmail.com)
10