FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session 
SENATE 
SXNo. 135 
Introduced by Senator FRANKLIN M. DRILON 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
~---
"No other single piece of legislation has been 
more abused and its intendments perverted, than B.P. 
22." (Judge David G. Nitafan, Notes and Comments on the 
Bouncing Checks Law, Second Revised Edition, 1995) 
Thirty-one years have passed since Batas Pambansa Big. 22, 
otherwise known as "An Act Penalizing The Making Or Drawing And 
Issuance Of A Check Without SUfficient Funds Or Credit," was 
passed into law. And nearly twenty-four years since the Supreme 
Court in the landmark case of Lozano v. Martinez (146 SeRA 323) 
made the doctrinal pronouncement that B.P. 22 is not repugnant 
to the constitutional proscription against imprisonment for debt -
thus sustaining the constitutionality of the statute. 
Since then innumerable cases for violation of B.P. 22 flooded 
and clogged the docket of the courts, a good number of which 
reached the Supreme Court and disposed of in the manner 
dictated by Lozano. 
While this author is fully cognizant of the rationale for the 
law, i.e., the need to curb the practice of putting worthless checks 
in circulation as it can very well pollute the channels of trade and 
commerce and injure the banking system, the rampant and almost 
indiscriminate resort to the statute as a tool to coerce payments 
have made it imperative for Congress to re-examine the efficacy of 
the law. 
Although Lozano clarifies that B.P. 22 is not intended or 
designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt, this is precisely what is 
happening. 
We are all aware of the practice of merchants, financing 
companies and other lenders of requiring borrowers to issue a 
certain number of post-dated checks corresponding to the number 
of months of installment applied for by the borrower. These checks 
are then kept on file by the creditor to be brought out only on their 
respective due dates to coerce payment under threat of criminal 
prosecution that can lead to imprisonment upon conviction in case 
the borrower fails to replace the checks with cash. The checks, 


therefore, have become a veritable Damocles Sword over the head 
of the borrower. 
Equally prevalent is the practice of creditors of filing before 
the prosecutor's office as many counts of B.P. 22 as there were 
"bounced" checks even if one is merely a replacement of another, 
and even if said checks were issued by the same drawer on only 
one occasion, in consideration of the same transaction and to the 
same payee. While this is allowed under the law, the same has 
resulted in severely clogged court dockets. It is estimated that in 
the Metropolitan Manila area alone, approximately thirty percent 
(30%) of the trial courts' dockets involve supposed violations of 
B.P.22. 
What is more lamentable, however, is that once the creditors 
get paid either during the preliminary investigation, pre-trial or 
during trial, they lose interest in the prosecution of the case and 
disappear, oftentimes not even advising the Prosecutor of their 
having lost their desire to pursue the case. This has led to a 
perversion of the judicial process. 
True enough, financing companies and other creditors, 
through the potent threat of imprisonment imposable under B.P. 
22, have made the prosecutor's office and the courts as their 
collection agents, using the awesome powers of the State to 
pressure their debtors to pay their obligations or suffer possible 
imprisonment. 
The statute, therefore, has by practice become nothing more 
than a veiled device of creditors to coerce payment of debts under 
pain of imprisonment. This is in apparent mockery and distortion 
of the original intention of the law. 
In Eduardo Vaca, v. Court of Appeals (O.R. No. 131714, 16 
November 1998; 298 SCRA 656, 664), the Supreme Court modified 
the sentence imposed for violation of B.P. 22 by deleting the 
penalty of imprisonment ahd imposing only the penalty of fine m 
an amount double the amount of the check. The Court held: 
"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. BIg. 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 
of 
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 Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G. R. No. 130038, 18 
September 2000), the Supreme Court en bane, applying Vaea also 
deleted the penalty of imprisonment and sentenced the drawer of 
the bounced check to the maximum of the fine allowed by B.P. 22, 
and concluded that "such would best serve the ends of criminal 
justice." 
On November 21, 2000, the Supreme Court issued 
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 asking all courts and judges 
to take note of the policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the 
imposition of penalties for violation of B.P. 22 as adopted in Vaca 
and Rosa Lim. 
In Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 (February 14, 2001), 
the Supreme Court clarified: 
"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. BIg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative 
intent behind the law. 
"Thus, 
Administrative Circular No. 
12-2000 
establishes a rule of preference in the application of 
the penal provisions of B.P. Big. 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. 12-2000 ought 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. Big. 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." 
Under 
these 
premises, 
this 
bill 
seeks 
to 
remove 
imprisonment as penalty for violations of B.P. 22. 
The passage of this bill is earnestly sought. 
Senator 


FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session 
SENATE 
S. ~~. 135 
Introduced by. Senator Franklin M. Drilon 
AN ACT 
REMOVING 
IMPRISONMENT AS PENALTY FOR 
VIOLATIONS 
OF BATAS 
PAMBANSA 
BLG. 
22, 
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "AN ACT PENALIZING THE 
MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A 
CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT" 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives 
of the Philippines in Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. 
Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 is hereby 
amended to read as follows: 
"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. This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days 
following its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general 
circulation. 
Approved,