Special Penal Laws Update Part 13

BATAS PAMBANSA  BLG. 22

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW

ACTS PUNISHABLE:

  1. any person who makes or draws and issues 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 drawee, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
  1. 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 days from date appearing thereon, for which reason, it is dishonored by the drawee bank.

HOW TO ESTABLISH GUILT

OF ACCUSED IN BP 22

 

Gutierrez

VS

Pallatao

8/8/98

          To establish her guilt, it is indispensable that the checks she issued for which she was subsequently charged, be offered in evidence because the gravamen of the offense charged is the act of knowingly issuing a check with insufficient funds.  Clearly, it was error to convict complainant on the basis of her letter alone.  Nevertheless, despite this incorrect interpretation of a rule on evidence, we do not find the same as sufficiently constitutive of the charges of gross ignorance of the law and of knowingly rendering an unjust decision. Rather, it is at most an error in judgment, for which, as a general rule, he cannot be held administratively liable.  In this regard, we reiterate the prevailing rule in our jurisdiction as established by current jurisprudence.

NOTICE, AN INDISPENSABLE

REQUISITE FOR PROSECUTION OF BP 22

          Section 3 of BP 22 requires that the holder of the check or the drawee bank, must notify the drawer of the check that the same was dishonored, if the same is presented within ninety days from date of issuance, and upon notice the drawer has five days within which to make arrangements for the payment of the check or pay the same in full.

DUTY OF THE DRAWEE BANK

          The drawee bank has the duty to cause to be written, printed or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached thereto the reason for the drawee’s dishonor or refusal to pay the same.  If the drawee bank fails to do so, prosecution for violation of BP 22 may not prosper.

 

 

RULE IN CASE OF DISHONOR

DUE TO STOP PAYMENT

          The drawee bank has not only the duty to indicate that the drawer stopped the payment and the reason for the stop payment.  The drawee bank is further obligated to state whether the drawer of the check has sufficient funds in the bank or not.

 

AGREEMENT OF PARTIES

REGARDING THE CHECK

IS NOT A DEFENSE

          In the case of People vs Nitafan, 215 SCRA, the agreement of the parties in respect to the issuance of the check is inconsequential or will not affect the violation of BP 22, if the check is presented to the bank and the same was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.

 

 

CHECKS ISSUED IN PAYMENT

OF INSTALLMENT

          Checks issued in payment for installment covered by promissory note and said checks bounced, the drawer is liable if the checks were drawn against insufficient funds, especially that the drawer, upon signing of the promissory note, closed his account.  Said check is still with consideration.  (Caram Resources v. Contreras)

          In this case, the Judge was even held administratively liable.

 

CHECK DRAWN AGAINST

A DOLLAR ACCOUNT.  RULE:

 

De Villa

VS

CA

 

          A check drawn against a dollar account in a foreign country is still violative of the provisions of  BP 22 so long as the check is issued, delivered or uttered in the Philippines, even if the same is payable outside of the Philippines

 

GUARANTEE CHECKS, DRAWER,

STILL LIABLE

 

          The mere act of issuing a worthless check is punishable.  Offender cannot claim good faith for it is malum prohibitum.

          In the case of Magno vs CA, when accused issued a check as warranty deposit for lease of certain equipment, even knowing that he has no funds or insufficient funds in the bank is not liable, if the lessor of the equipment pulled out the loaned equipment.  The drawer has no obligation to make good the check because there is no more deposit to guaranty.

Share this:

Leave a Reply