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.
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. 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 drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be
punished by imprisonment of not less than
thirty days but not more than one (1) year or
by a fine of not less than but not more than
double the amount of the check which fine
shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at
the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon 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 (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation,
company or entity, the person or persons who
actually signed the check in behalf of such
drawer shall be liable under this Act.
Section
2. Evidence
of
knowledge
of
insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and
issuance of a check payment of which is
refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when
presented within ninety (90) days from the
date of the check, shall be prima facie
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of
funds or credit unless such maker or drawer
pays the holder thereof the amount due
thereon, or makes arrangements for payment
in full by the drawee of such check within (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such
check has not been paid by the drawee.
Section 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check,
when refusing to pay the same to the holder
thereof upon presentment, to cause to be
written, printed, or stamped in plain language
thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for
drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the same:
Provided, That where there are no sufficient
funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such
fact shall always be explicitly stated in the
notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions
under this Act, the introduction in evidence of

any unpaid and dishonored check, having the

drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written
thereon or attached thereto, with the reason
therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie
evidence of the making or issuance of said
check, and the due presentment to the drawee
for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that
the same was properly dishonored for the
reason written, stamped or attached by the
drawee on such dishonored check.
Not with standing receipt of an order to stop
payment, the drawee shall state in the notice
that there were no sufficient funds in or credit
with such bank for the payment in full of such
check, if such be the fact.
Section 4. Credit construed. - The word
"credit" as used herein shall be construed to
mean an arrangement or understanding with
the bank for the payment of such check.
Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal
Code. - Prosecution under this Act shall be
without prejudice to any liability for violation of
any provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Section 6. Separability clause. - If any
separable provision of this Act be declared
unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall
continue to be in force.
Section 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take
effect fifteen days after publication in the
Official Gazette.
Approved: April 3, 1979.

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000

February 21, 2001
RE : PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF B.P. BLG. 22
Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 (An Act Penalizing the
Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check
Without Sufficient Funds for Credit and for
Other Purposes) imposes the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days
but not more than one (1) 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.
In its decision in Eduardo Vaca, v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998;
298 SCRA 656, 664) the Supreme Court
(Second Division) per Mr. Justice V. Mendoza,
modified the sentence imposed for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 by deleting the penalty of
imprisonment and imposing only the penalty of
fine in an amount double the amount of the
check. In justification thereof, the Court said:
Petitioners are first-time offenders. They
are
Filipino
entrepreneurs
who

presumably contribute to the national

economy. Apparently, they brought this
appeal, believing in all good faith,
although mistakenly that they had not
committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Otherwise, they could simply have
accepted the judgment of the trial court
and applied for probation to evade a
prison term. It would best serve the
ends of criminal justice if in fixing the
penalty within the range of discretion
allowed by Section 1, par. 1, the same
philosophy underlying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is observed, namely, that
of redeeming valuable human material
and preventing unnecessary deprivation
f
personal
liberty
and economic
usefulness with due regard to the
protection of the social order. In this
case, we believe that a fine in an
amount equal to double the amount of
the check involved is an appropriate
penalty to impose on each of the
petitioners In the recent case of Rosa
Lim v. People of the Philippines (G. R.
No. 130038, 18 September 2000), the
Supreme Court en banc, applying Vaca
also
deleted
the
penalty
of
imprisonment and sentenced the drawer
of the bounced check to the maximum
of the fine allowed by B.P. Blg. 22, i.e.,
P200,000, and concluded that such
would best serve the ends of criminal
justice.
All courts and judges concerned should
henceforth take note of the foregoing policy of
the Supreme Court on the matter of the
imposition of penalties for violations of B.P. Blg.
22. The Court Administrator shall cause the
immediate dissemination of this Administrative
Circular to all courts and judges concerned.
This Administrative Circular, referred to and
approved by the Supreme Court en banc, shall
take effect upon its issuance.
Issued this 21st day of February, 2001.

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001

February 14, 2001
TO : ALL JUDGES
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000
ON THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE BOUNCING CHECK LAW.
Clarification has been sought by
concerned Judges and other parties
regarding
the
operation
of Administrative
Circular
12-2000
issued on 21 November 2000. In
particular, queries have been made
regarding the authority of Judges to:

1. Impose the penalty of imprisonment

for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22; and
2. Impose subsidiary imprisonment in
the event that the accused who is found
guilty of violating the provisions of B.P.
Blg. 22, is unable to pay the fine which
he is sentenced to pay considering that
Administrative
Circular
No.
122000 adopted the rulings in Eduardo
Vaca v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
131714, 16 November 1998, 298 SCRA
656) and Rosa Lim v. People of the
Philippines (G.R. No. 130038, 18
September 2000) as a policy of the
Supreme Court on the matter of the
imposition of penalties for violations of
B.P. Blg. 22, without mentioning whether
subsidiary
imprisonment
could
be
resorted to in case of the accused's
inability to pay the fine.

The clear tenor and intention of Administrative

Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to
lay down a rule of preference in the application
of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not
foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat
the legislative intent behind the law.
Thus, Administrative
Circular
No.
122000 establishes a rule of preference in the
application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg.
22 such that where the circumstances of both
the offense and the offender clearly indicate
good faith or a clear mistake of fact without
taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine
alone should be considered as the more
appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the
determination of whether the circumstances
warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests
solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge decide
that imprisonment is the more appropriate
penalty, Administrative
Circular
No.
122000ought not be deemed a hindrance.
It is, therefore, understood that:
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does
not remove imprisonment as an
alternative penalty for violations of B.P.
Blg. 22;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the
exercise of sound discretion, and taking
into
consideration
the
peculiar
circumstances of each case, determine
whether the imposition of a fine alone
would best serve the interests of justice
or whether forbearing to impose
imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work
violence on the social order, or

otherwise be contrary to the imperatives

of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and
the accused be unable to pay the fine,
there is no legal obstacle to the
application
of
the Revised
Penal
Code provisions
on
subsidiary
imprisonment.
The issuance of this Administrative Circular
was authorized by the Court En Banc in A.M.
No. 00-11-01-SC at its session of 13 February
2001.
The Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court and
the Court Administrator shall immediately
cause
the
implementation
of
this
Administrative Circular.
This Administrative Circular shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation not later
than 20 February 2001.
Issued this 14th day of February, 2001.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,

President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution, do
hereby decree and order as follows:
Section 1. Any person or persons who shall
commit estafa or other forms of swindling as
defined in Article 315 and 316 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by
life imprisonment to death if the swindling
(estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting
of five or more persons formed with the
intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal
act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of
money contributed by stockholders, or
members
of
rural
banks,
cooperative,
"samahang nayon(s)", or farmers association,
or
of
funds
solicited
by
corporations/associations from the general
public.
When not committed by a syndicate as above
defined, the penalty imposable shall be
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the
amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.
Section 2. This
immediately.

decree

shall

take

effect

DONE in the City of Manila, this 6th day of

April, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and eighty.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1689
April 6, 1980
INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR CERTAIN
FORMS OF SWINDLING OR ESTAFA
WHEREAS, there is an upsurge in the
commission of swindling and other forms of
frauds in rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang
nayon (s)", and farmers' associations or
corporations/associations operating on funds
solicited from the general public;
WHEREAS,
such
defraudation
or
misappropriation of funds contributed by
stockholders or members of such rural banks,
cooperatives,
"samahang
nayon(s)",
or
farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general
public, erodes the confidence of the public in
the
banking
and
cooperative
system,
contravenes
the
public
interest,
and
constitutes economic sabotage that threatens
the stability of the nation;
WHEREAS, it is imperative that the resurgence
of said crimes be checked, or at least
minimized, by imposing capital punishment on
certain forms of swindling and other frauds
involving rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang
nayon(s)",
farmers'
associations
or
corporations/associations operating on funds
solicited from the general public;