"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. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. (Underscoring supplied).] 

The gravamen of B.P. No. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or one that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment.  And the accused failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment within five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor.²¹ [King v. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999.] The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and inimical to public welfare.²² [Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 17.] Laws are created to achieve a goal intended and to guide and prevent against an evil or mischief.²³ Codoy v. Calugay, 312 SCRA 333, 351 (1999).] Why and to whom the check was issued is irrelevant in determining culpability.  The terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are also irrelevant.²⁴ [Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 423 (1997).]

Unlike in estafa,²⁵ [People v. Hernando, G.R. No. 125214, October 28, 1999.] under B. P. No. 22, one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation, or that there was damage.  The damage done is to the banking system.²⁶ [Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 658 (1998).]

In United States v. Go Chico, we ruled that in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, “has the law been violated?” When dealing with acts mala prohibita²⁷ [United States v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128, 131 (1909).]--

“… it is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with criminal intent.  In many crimes, made such by statutory enactment, the intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterial.  This is necessarily so.  If it were not, the statute as a deterrent influence would be substantially worthless.  It would be impossible of execution.  In many cases, the act complained of is itself that which produces the pernicious effect the statute seeks to avoid.   In those cases the pernicious effect is produced with precisely the same force and result whether the intention of the person performing the act is good or bad.”

This case is a perfect example of an act mala prohibita.  Petitioner issued two checks.  They were dishonored upon presentment for payment due to the fact that the account was closed.  Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that she knew her funds were insufficient at the time of issue of the checks.  And she failed to pay the amount of the checks or make arrangement for its payment within five (5) banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor.  B.P. No. 22 was clearly violated.  Hoc quidem per quam durum est sed ita lex scripta est.  The law may be exceedingly hard but so the law is written.

En Banc, Justice Pardo, Rosa Lim v. People G.R. 130038, September 18, 2000

What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the term and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.

The gravamen of the offense punished under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bad check malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.33 [People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 101127-31, 18 November 1993, 228 SCRA 13.] Considering the rule in mala prohibita cases, the only inquiry is whether the law has been breached. Criminal intent becomes unnecessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy, and the defenses of good faith and absence of criminal intent are unavailing.