Collection for Payees
Demand letters, notices of dishonor, and BP 22 prosecution for holders of bounced checks — with the civil action for the amount of the check deemed included in the case.
Criminal Litigation
A bounced check is either your strongest collection tool or a criminal charge hanging over your head. Either way, the case is won or lost on technical details — and we know them all.
Overview
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the making or issuance of a check that is dishonored for insufficiency of funds or because the account is closed. Deceptively simple, the law is dense with technical requirements: the written notice of dishonor the issuer must actually receive, the five-banking-day period to pay or arrange payment of the check, and the presumption that the issuer knew the funds were insufficient when the check bounces within ninety days from its date. Cases may be filed where the check was issued, drawn, or dishonored, and are penalized by fine, imprisonment, or both — with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 favoring fines over imprisonment in proper cases.
As part of our criminal litigation practice, we act on both sides of the check. For payees, a BP 22 case is a powerful collection remedy — the civil action to recover the amount of the check is deemed included in the criminal case, so one proceeding pursues both accountability and payment. For issuers, we mount the technical defenses the law provides, foremost among them the prosecution's frequent failure to prove actual receipt of a written notice of dishonor — a defect that has won acquittal in case after case.
The same bounced check can also give rise to estafa under Article 315(2)(d) — a distinct offense with different elements that may be filed together with BP 22. Choosing whether to file one or both, and defending against either, calls for a firm that litigates both statutes regularly and understands how they interact.
Scope of Work
Demand letters, notices of dishonor, and BP 22 prosecution for holders of bounced checks — with the civil action for the amount of the check deemed included in the case.
Representation of drawers facing BP 22 charges — from responding to demand letters through preliminary investigation, trial, and appeal.
Scrutiny of the written notice of dishonor and proof of its receipt — the element the prosecution most often fails to establish, and a frequent basis for acquittal.
Urgent advice for issuers within the five-banking-day period to pay or arrange payment — the window that can prevent the presumption of knowledge from arising at all.
Assessment of whether a bounced check supports BP 22, estafa under Article 315(2)(d), or both — and coordinated prosecution or defense of the parallel cases.
Advocacy on the penalty itself — invoking Administrative Circular No. 12-2000's preference for fines over imprisonment in proper cases, and negotiating resolutions where warranted.
Common Questions
Not necessarily. BP 22 is punishable by imprisonment, a fine, or both, but under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 courts are encouraged, in proper cases, to impose a fine rather than imprisonment — especially for first-time offenders acting in good faith. More fundamentally, a bounced check does not automatically mean conviction: the prosecution must still prove every element, including that you received a written notice of dishonor and failed to pay within five banking days. A case has to be defended, not feared.
Yes, critically. The written notice of dishonor is what triggers your five-banking-day opportunity to pay or arrange payment of the check, and it is the basis of the presumption that you knew the funds were insufficient. The Supreme Court has consistently acquitted accused persons where the prosecution could not prove actual receipt of a written notice — a mere mailing, or a verbal demand, is not enough. Failure of proof of notice is one of the most common winning defenses in BP 22 cases.
For BP 22, generally yes. The law punishes the making and issuance of a worthless check itself, because the practice is considered harmful to the public interest — so the purpose of the check, whether payment, guarantee, or security, is not a defense to the BP 22 charge. The purpose can matter elsewhere, however: for estafa under Article 315(2)(d), the check must have been issued as payment for a simultaneous obligation, so a guarantee check may defeat the estafa charge even if the BP 22 case proceeds.
Yes — timing is everything. If you pay the amount of the check, or arrange for its payment, within five banking days from receiving the written notice of dishonor, the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds does not arise, and no case should prosper on that check. Even after a case is filed, settling the amount can significantly affect how the matter is resolved, though it does not automatically extinguish criminal liability. If you have received a demand letter or notice of dishonor, act within the period — and get counsel immediately.
Yes, over the same bounced check, because the two offenses have different elements — BP 22 punishes the issuance of a worthless check regardless of deceit, while estafa under Article 315(2)(d) requires that the check was the fraudulent means used to obtain money or property. Filing both does not violate double jeopardy. Note that when a BP 22 case is filed, the civil action to recover the amount of the check is deemed included in the criminal case, which affects how the overall collection strategy should be structured.
Work With Us
Reach us via Call, Viber, or WhatsApp at 0917-187-1951. Time periods in BP 22 cases are short — send us the check and demand details early.
Request a Consultation