BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.

22
“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of poll tax,”- Section 20, Article III,
1987 Constitution.
Borrowing alone of money will not make you criminally liable. However, when the act of
borrowing money is accompanied with an act which is punishable by law with imprisonment or penalty,
the debtor may be criminally liable not for the non-payment of debt but for the commission of the crime
itself. The issuance of checks which were later dishonored by the bank constitutes a crime of either
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg 22 or Estafa.
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not
necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special
law (Reyes, Luis B., 2012, p.53 Criminal Law 18th edition).
The rationale behind it, is the act itself is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the
prohibited act is the crime itself.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was purposely enacted to prevent the proliferation of worthless
checks in the mainstream of daily business and to avert not only the undermining the Banking
System of the country, but also the infliction of damage and injury upon trade and commerce
occasioned by the indiscriminate issuance of such checks. By its very nature, the offenses
defined BP 22 are against public interest while the crime of Estafa is against property.

Since the act and commission specified in BP Blg. 22 are not necessarily evil or wrongful from
their nature and neither are they inherently illicit and immoral and considering that the law
which penalize [sic] such act or commission is a special statutory law, the offenses are
considered mala prohibita and considering the rule in cases of mala prohibita, the only inquiry
is whether or not the law has been violated (People vs. KIBLER, 106, NY, 321, cited in U.S.
vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 132) criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for
reasons of public policy (People vs. Conosa, C.A. 45, O.G. 3953). The defense of good faith
and absence of criminal intent would not prosper in prosecution for violation (Res. No.
447, S.1980, Tomayo vs. Desederio, Dec. 8, 1980 & Res. No. 624, S.1981. ESCOBAR vs. SY,
Sept. 1, 1981).
(Ibasco vs. Court Of Appeals and People of the Philippines)

Section 1 penalizes two distinct acts:

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.
2. 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.

To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present:
1. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
2. The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and
3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank
to stop payment.
(San Mateo vs People of the Philippines)

It also must be taken into account that Section 3 states that the accused must be notified of such
dishonor. The notification must be in writing. Being a penal statute.
BP 22 is construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused, thus the prosecution
must prove that the accused failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or make
arrangement for its payment within five (5) banking days. Without such written notice, there is no way
of determining the running of the 5-day period.
 The punishment is imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) 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 P200,000, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.