BP 22 vs Estafa: Bouncing Check Cases Compared

BP 22 looks at the act of issuing a bad check. Section 1 punishes a person who issues a check knowing that he or she does not have enough funds, when the bank later dishonors it. In Dico v. Court of Appeals (2005), the Supreme Court listed three elements: issuing the check, knowing at that time that the funds were not enough, and the later dishonor by the bank. Fraud is not among them.

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), looks at fraud. The check must be the tool used to get money or property from the victim:

Article 315 also requires that the false pretense or fraudulent act be done "prior to or simultaneously with" the fraud. So a check given only after the money or goods were already received may not fit this paragraph, while BP 22 can still apply. Whether estafa is present always depends on the facts.

In a BP 22 case, the prosecution must show that the issuer knew the account lacked funds. Section 2 lets the court presume that knowledge, but only when:

• the check was presented within 90 days from its date,
• the bank dishonored it, and
• the issuer did not pay or arrange full payment within 5 banking days after receiving notice of the dishonor.

In Dico, the Supreme Court said the notice must be in writing, and that "a mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice." It also repeated that full payment within the 5 banking days is a complete defense. And a demand sent before a postdated check falls due does not count, because the check cannot be dishonored before its date.

For estafa, Article 315 uses a shorter clock: if the drawer does not deposit the amount within 3 days from receiving notice of the dishonor, the law presumes deceit.

BP 22 allows jail, a fine, or both. The Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular 12-2000, later clarified by Circular 13-2001, on which penalty to choose. As explained in De Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas City (2003) and Go v. Dimagiba (2005):

• When the facts show good faith or a clear mistake of fact without negligence, a fine alone is the preferred penalty.
• The circular does not remove imprisonment. The judge decides, case by case.
• If only a fine is imposed and the accused cannot pay it, subsidiary imprisonment can apply.
• The circular does not help someone whose conviction is already final.

Estafa has no such rule. Its penalty is imprisonment, and the length grows with the amount. For the full scale, see Estafa penalty in the Philippines.

Not forever. BP 22 is a special law, so its deadline comes from Act No. 3326. In Panaguiton v. Department of Justice (2008), the Supreme Court held that BP 22 cases prescribe in four years, and that filing the complaint with the prosecutor interrupts that period.

Estafa follows Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. For estafa by check, the penalty is prision mayor up to ₱2,400,000, which prescribes in 15 years; above that it is reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua, which prescribe in 20 years. See Prescription of crimes.

No. The 1987 Constitution says no person shall be imprisoned for debt (Article III, Section 20). BP 22 and estafa punish the act of issuing a bad check or using it to defraud, not the failure to pay a loan. If no check was issued, see Can you go to jail for unpaid debt?

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Kim. Kim buys a ₱60,000 laptop on installment and gives three postdated checks. The second check bounces. The seller sends Kim a written notice of dishonor, and Kim pays the full amount within 5 banking days. Under BP 22 Section 2, the presumption that Kim knew of the lack of funds does not arise, and full payment within that time is a complete defense.

Nestor. Nestor's ₱50,000 check for a used motorcycle bounces. The seller only calls him on the phone. Under Dico, a phone call is not a valid notice of dishonor for BP 22.

Ricky and Aling Tess. Ricky buys ₱35,000 worth of rice from Aling Tess on the spot and pays with a check from an account he knows is already closed, and he ignores her written notice of dishonor. The check was the means to get the rice, so this can be estafa under paragraph 2(d), punished by prision mayor in its minimum period. It can also be a BP 22 case at the same time (Section 5).

Gina. Gina's check bounces because her salary was credited a day late. If the court finds good faith or a clear mistake of fact without negligence, the Supreme Court circulars point to a fine alone. The judge still decides.

Get a lawyer if you received a notice of dishonor or a subpoena from the prosecutor, or if you hold a bounced check and want to file. The outcome depends on the dates, the notice and the reason the check was issued. Bail for both cases is explained in How much is bail? If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines for the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and other options.