BP 22 after 17 Years.

Seventeen years ago, I published one of my earlier newspaper articles, a piece entitled 'BP 22 defanged.' Although years have passed, very little has changed in the law, rules, and decided cases, such that I am republishing the article, with minor updates.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22), became effective on June 29, 1979. The law punishes the act of issuance of a check to apply on account or for value, when the account against which the check was drawn has insufficient funds, or when a stop payment order is issued without any valid reason.

Because BP 22 imposes imprisonment among its penalties, it is common practice among creditors to require their debtors to issue post-dated checks to cover amortization of their loans and payment for goods and services.

The essential elements of the crime of BP 22 are:

1. the accused is the issuer who signed the dishonored check and the check is issued for account or for value;

2. the accused has knowledge at the time he issued the check that the bank account against which the check is issued has insufficient funds in or credit with the bank for the payment of the check when presented for payment; and

3. the drawee bank dishonors the check because of insufficiency of funds, or it would have dishonored the check for the same reason if the issuer did not order the bank to stop payment for no valid reason.

The law presumes that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of his funds if the check is dishonored within 90 days from the date of the check. This presumption is overcome only if the issuer pays or makes arrangements for payment of the full amount of the check within five banking days after receiving a notice of its dishonor.

When I wrote my original article in 2007, I noted that there have been two important developments regarding BP 22. The first is the shift in policy as announced by the Supreme Court in its Administrative Circular Nos. 12-2000 and 13-01 on the imposition of a fine only, and not imprisonment, for violations of BP 22. The second, decisions of the courts holding that the prosecution in BP 22 must establish that a written notice of dishonor was actually received by the person who issued the dishonored check.

Fine as penalty

The Supreme Court in its Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 declared that, in imposing the penalty for violations of BP 22, courts should follow the policy of 'redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation...