Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Bouncing Checks

Liabilities for Violation of B.P. 22

Situation
I issued a check, thinking that I had
sufficient funds. The person I issued the
check to did not inform me that the
check bounced.
If a case is filed against me, will it
prosper?

Will a case of B.P. 22 prosper against me?


NO.
To be liable under B.P. 22, it must be
established that the check was issued and
that it was dishonored. It must also be
shown that you, the accused, knew that
when you issued the check, the account will
not be sufficiently funded upon presentment
of the check to the bank.

How can I be made liable under B.P. 22?


For a B.P. 22 case to prosper, the following should
be sufficiently established:
1. A check was issued;
2. At the time of issue, the person who issued
the check knew that there would not be
sufficient funds if the check is presented to
the bank;
3. The check is dishonored.

How can the complainant prove that I knew


(2nd element)?

Notice of Dishonor
The complainant will sent you a notice of
dishonor to prove that you were aware that you
had insufficient funds and that the bank
dishonored your check.
This notice creates the presumption that you
knew about the insufficiency.

Who can give valid notice of dishonor?


The notice of dishonor may be given by:
a. the one you issued the check to; or
b. the bank.

Note! This should be written notice or at


least clear proof of notice. Remember that
this is a criminal case and the guilt should be
established beyond reasonable doubt.

What if notice was really given?


The law gives you five (5) banking days after
receiving the notice of dishonor to fund the
check or make arrangements for the
payment.

(Banking Days = Monday to Friday)

What else should we remember?


Even if the criminal case will not prosper,
you may still be held liable for the civil
aspect. This means that you have to pay the
person you issued the check to usually
with legal interest and other interests
that the Court may impose.
Moral of the Story:
Make good on your commitments.

Sources

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other
Purposes)

Campos v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187401 (September 17, 2014)

Resterio v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177438 (September 24, 2012)

[Uploaded on 16 October 2015]]

DISCLAIMER
AttyJuan.ph is a public service website. Information
provided herein is of general information only and is not
intended as a substitute for personal professional legal
advice. Persons confronted with more specific legal issues
are encouraged to seek the advice of independent counsel.
AttyJuan.ph and any of its representatives, volunteers, and
contributors expressly disclaim liability of any kind with
respect to the use and reliance on anything contained in this
presentation or website. AttyJuan.ph reserves the right to
change this Disclaimer without prior notice.