In order to afford protection to business and the public in general, and prevent the circulation of worthless checks, Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, also known as “An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes,” was approved in April 1979. The law punishes the acts of making and issuing a check with knowledge by the issuer that at the time the check is issued, he does not have sufficient funds, and the failure to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing on the check.
More than three decades after its enactment, let us examine how the law has evolved throughout these years.
When BP 22 was passed, many questioned the statute’s validity vis-à-vis the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be imprisoned for nonpayment of debt. In upholding the constitutionality of BP 22, the Supreme Court (SC) held that “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. It is not the nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.” (Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, 18 December 1986)
BP 22 punishes the issuer of the worthless check with imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than one year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed P200,000 or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Prior to the amendment of BP Blg. 129 by Republic Act (RA) 7691 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court), the Regional Trial Court may acquire jurisdiction over BP 22 cases depending on the penalties imposed. However, with the subsequent amendment by RA 7691, the Metropolitan Trial Court assumes exclusive jurisdiction over BP 22 cases.
For a time, many were misled that violations of BP 22 have been decriminalized when the SC rendered decisions modifying the penalties imposed by the lower courts by imposing only the penalty of fine. (Vaca, et al. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998] and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines [G. R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000]) In Administrative Circular 12-2000 issued on November 21, 2000, the SC required all courts and judges concerned to take note of the policy rendered in those two cases, particularly on the matter of the imposition of penalties, making it appear that violation of BP 22 would only merit fines. But the SC was quick to issue another circular, A.M. 00-11-01-SC on February 13, 2001, clarifying that when A.M. 12-2000 was issued, it was not meant to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in BP 22. 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.
It is the main intention of the law to make the issuer of a worthless check liable since the introduction of worthless checks is not just harmful to the innocent payees but the entire economy, as well. However, one must bear in mind that the mere issuance of a worthless check would not make one liable for BP 22. It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored, but it must be established that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored. 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. (Bax v. People, G.R. No. 149858, 5 September 2007)
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.
More than three decades after its enactment, does BP 22 still serve its purpose? Does the law still serve as a deterrent to those unscrupulous issuers of bum checks.
Let us consider these: (1) It is undeniable that what deters a person from committing a crime is the possibility of arrest and imprisonment. When violation of BP 22 was included in those governed by the Summary Procedure, a warrant of arrest is not anymore issued when the case is filed in Court. It is only when the accused fails to appear in Court that a warrant of arrest may be issued against him; (2) Since the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over violations of BP 22, no Hold Departure Orders can be issued against those violators since Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts have no power to issue the same. Accused under trial can thus easily evade prosecution by leaving the country; and (3) The aggrieved parties have also failed to pursue the case for BP 22 since the Courts require them to pay the corresponding filing fees. They need to shell out amounts for filing fees after they have been duped and victimized with checks, which they cannot encash.
In the end, there appears a need to revisit the provisions of BP 22 and other laws affecting the same to afford the fullest protection to the public and the economy in general. A check as a substitute for money plays a vital role in commercial transactions. Any person who wishes to trample upon the smooth flow of commercial transactions must be held liable.
For comments, you may e-mail me at lpkapunan@kapunanlaw.com.
13 comments
Ask ko lang about bp22 . What if theres 3rd party involved say i issue a check to a friend . She borrowed a check then encash it so a certian person that entertain check but problem is my friend should deposit that certain amount to my account pay that check that she encash. The check bounced since it was insuffecient fund. Now 3rd person doesnt know whose the real owner or the check all she know the one who encash it.sino hahabulin dapat yung nagpa encash or your issuer what if sinabi na issuer hiniram nya lang yun is she still liable?
Ask ko lang po can i charge to bp22 case they issued check amount of 30,000 pesos only but check has no fund and it was close account how to do. Ty
Hi po, what tp do next for the deposited checks with fund ?
Pls advise.
Thanks
Hi, my client issued to me dated check amounting to 120,000 as payment for the products he ordered, pero nung iwiwithraw ko na po wala cya pondo, then sinabi ko pp sa owner ng cheque. Promise lang po cya cya promise, til now wala pa po fund ang cheque. What can i di po? Please advise.
Thank you
Ronald
You can sued your client po and filed him/her a case. From the day na tumalbog yung cheque niya nung time na e wiwithdraw nyo til 90 days at hindi ni pa rin na bayaran o na bigyan ng pundo para ma recover yung funds that person will be liable to the penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than one year or a fine or not less than the amount of the check nor more than double said amount, but in no case to exceed P200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
whatt if po nag co maker po at ksama ako s pumirma s cheke..then nagtago n po yung mismong gumamit ng pera.. 2 po kming co borrower nya.. Kaso ako lng po ang nahanap nila…80k po ang inutang… Ngyn po nsa 198k n dw po yung utang dahil s tubo..ano po b ang tamang way ng pgbabayad…? pwede po bang yung 80k n principal ay hatiin sa tatlo? Nka tanggap n po ako ng warrant of arrest at nagpyansa lng po ang kuya ko.. Nakulong po ako ng almost 4 days..
Hi ma’am.. parehas po tayo ng case nag co maker din kmi ng pinsan q sa asawa q.. kmi ng pinsan q ang nka pirma sa cheque Kasi nag flight na po ang asawa q.. ngayon nag loan po kami 35k.. after 1year umuwi na asawa q hanggang sa hndi na po kmi nkakabayad Kasi hndi na po nka balik asawa q abroad..dito nlang po xa nagtatrabaho.. namamasada po ng pedicab at nag wawalis sa gabi sa market dito po sa lugar namin… Pinadalhan na po aq ng sukat case of bp. 22.. mag 7 years na po sa August 4,2021 hndi pa po namin na settle.. natatakot po aq bka bigla na lang aq hulihin at ekulong.. ano po ba dapat gawin…??
Hi ma’am.. parehas po tayo ng case nag co maker din kmi ng pinsan q sa asawa q.. kmi ng pinsan q ang nka pirma sa cheque Kasi nag flight na po ang asawa q.. ngayon nag loan po kami 35k.. after 1year umuwi na asawa q hanggang sa hndi na po kmi nkakabayad Kasi hndi na po nka balik asawa q abroad..dito nlang po xa nagtatrabaho.. namamasada po ng pedicab at nag wawalis sa gabi sa market dito po sa lugar namin… Pinadalhan na po aq ng sukat case of bp. 22.. mag 7 years na po sa August 4,2021 hndi pa po namin na settle.. natatakot po aq bka bigla na lang aq hulihin at ekulong.. ano po ba dapat gawin…?? Salamat po
Hi po, a friend of mine asked me to used my credit card to purchases items used for investment.. then she issued to me three blank cheque. Two cheques was deposited to my acct as her payment but the cheque has no funds..then their is still another 1 left cheque pero wala na ring fund and mukhang closed na ang account. I reported to Brgy.. but since I don’t have exact address walang action po.. but shes active SA number niya and FB acct. What should I do.. total amount more than 180k ( not included the penalty SA credit card).. she only paid 10k out of it..mag 6 months na po.
Just want to ask if meron na po ba decision sa MTC And RTC on bp22 case pwede pa po ba umapila ang accused..if sa decision po NG RTC and MTC Guilty ang accused for example po 1M yun involved na amount pwede na po ba ipasherrif kung hnde pa siya nakikipagusap sa complainant or anu po ang dapat gawin? Thank you.
pano po pag ang creditor ay aware na close na yung account since we inform them that there will be no available fund due to pandemic they agree not to encash the check and then we received a notice from the bank that the account was been close since still they encash the amount even we inform them we cant make a deposit sa accound due to no transportation. now they are claiming they are not aware and asking me to settle the amount
Hi po, ano po dapat kung gagawin kc po may business po ako pero nalulugi na hindi na kanyang bayaran mga naisyu ko na checke simula po kc noong pandemic bumagsak na po ung sales nmin. Ngaun po dina po tlga Kaya.. Ano po mangyayari sa mga naisyuhan Kong checke kung sakaling mag close acct po ako sa banko? Ano po makukulong po ba ako? Natatakot po ako sa maaring mangyari.. Pakireply po ako.. Salamat po
Hi ma’am.jennifer banatao. parehas po tayo ng case nag co maker din kmi ng pinsan q sa asawa q.. kmi ng pinsan q ang nka pirma sa cheque Kasi nag flight na po ang asawa q.. ngayon nag loan po kami 35k.. after 1year umuwi na asawa q hanggang sa hndi na po kmi nkakabayad Kasi hndi na po nka balik asawa q abroad..dito nlang po xa nagtatrabaho.. namamasada po ng pedicab at nag wawalis sa gabi sa market dito po sa lugar namin… Pinadalhan na po aq ng sukat case of bp. 22.. mag 7 years na po sa August 4,2021 hndi pa po namin na settle.. natatakot po aq bka bigla na lang aq hulihin at ekulong.. ano po ba dapat gawin…?? Salamat po