Other Things to Consider in BP 22

BP 22 is in the nature of a continuing crime. The gravamen is the actual issuing of the check; it doesn't matter whether or not the intent of the perpetrator was fraudulent. The indeterminate sentence law can also apply to BP 22. Those who question the constitutionality of BP 22 on the ground that no person shall be imprisoned for failure to pay his debts have  to remember that a violation of BP 22 is not a crime against property but against public interest since checks, as a medium of commerce, are vital to the banking  industry.

Another thing to consider is Administrative Circular 13-2001. This circular clarifies the penalty to be imposed in BP 22 cases. In case a BP 22 case is proven in court, the court must not impose imprisonment first. The court is to consider the least severe penalty; the purpose is to redeem the issuer's economic value (read: to protect honest issuers who weren't able to make good on their checks.)

With regard to the circular, therefore, there are 3 penalties to consider:

1.) The prison term in BP 22

2.) Fine

3.) Subsidiary imprisonment in case of inability to pay the fine


An order to stop payment for insufficiency of funds is not a defense, but lack of knowledge  of the transaction and issuance can be (if there is a lack of delivery.)


A notice of dishonor must be written and personally served to the issuer or it won't be effective. Also, if a check bounces only the issuer is liable and not other indorsers.


The prescriptive period of BP 22 is 4 years from the date of receipt of the notice of dishonor.