- Statute
- Philippine Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
- Article
- Sec. 1
- Topic
- The acts penalized and the penalty
- Status
- In force
- Year
- 1979
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
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.
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
Section 1 penalises two distinct acts. The first is issuing a check while knowing at the time of issue that there are not enough funds or credit to cover it. The second is having enough funds when the check is issued but failing to keep them, so the check bounces when presented within ninety days of its date. Where a company issues the check, the person who actually signed it answers for the offence.
The section's own penalty is imprisonment of thirty days to one year, or a fine of not less than the amount of the check and not more than double it (capped at ₱200,000), or both, at the court's discretion. What a court actually imposes is governed by two Supreme Court issuances that sit on top of this text. Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (21 November 2000) adopted the rulings in Vaca v. Court of Appeals and Rosa Lim v. People as policy. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 (14 February 2001) then clarified what that policy is and is not: it does “not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but … lay[s] down a rule of preference,” and the preference applies “where the circumstances of both the offence and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence.” Imprisonment therefore remains available, and where the accused cannot pay the fine there is “no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.” Reading Section 1 without the two circulars gives the wrong picture of the sentence; reading the circulars as a bar on imprisonment gives an equally wrong one.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Cases applying this article
- Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp. G.R. No. 163597
- Buenaflor v. Federated Distributors, Inc. G.R. No. 240187