Bar Question (1995, simplified):
Is a person criminally liable under B.P. Blg. 22 if the check he issued was used just as a security
and not for payment?
Answer (Simplified):
Yes, a person can still be criminally liable under B.P. Blg. 22 even if the check was issued only
as a security.
● Why? Because B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless (bouncing) check,
not the reason behind issuing it.
● The law focuses on the act of issuing a check that later bounces due to insufficient funds
or because the account is closed.
● It doesn’t matter if the check was meant as payment, a loan guarantee, or security —
once it’s issued and dishonored, the law applies.
Key Concept:
The purpose of the check (payment vs. security) does not matter under B.P. Blg. 22. What
matters is that:
1. A check was issued,
2. It bounced,
3. The issuer failed to make good within 5 banking days after notice.