VICKY C. TY Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 149275. September 27, 2004
TINGA, J.
FACTS:
This for the Petition to Review under Rule 45, seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, dated April 21, 1997, finding her guilty of seven (7) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. It shows that Tys mother was confined, sometime in 1990 to 1992 at the Manila Doctors Hospital and being the patients daughter, Ty signed the Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment in the Contract of Admission. Tys sister, Judy Chua, was also confined at the hospital for almost a year, sometime in 1991 to 1992. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. On 5 June 1992, Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed payment of the obligation in installments. To assure payment of the obligation, she drew several postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital. Accused well knowing that at the time of issue she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of the check she issued in full. So then the seven (7) checks, each covering the amount of P30,000.00, were all deposited on their due dates. Were all dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of funds, with the Account Closed advice. Soon thereafter, the complainant hospital sent demand letters to Ty by registered mail. As the demand letters were not heeded, complainant filed the seven (7) Informations subject of the instant case.
Ty interposed an appeal from the Decision of the trial court. Before the Court of Appeals, Ty reiterated her defense that she issued the checks under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury.
Whether or Not the defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant her exemption from criminal liability.
RULING:
No. The petition is without merit and accordingly DENIED and sustained the Decision of the Court of Appeals,finding petitioner Vicky C. Ty GUILTY of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22..
The court do not agree on her contention, for The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt an accused from criminal liability under this paragraph of Article 11 in the Revised Penal Code: (1) that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; (2) that the injury feared be greater than the one done to avoid it; (3) that there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
In this case, the fear, if any,
harbored by Ty was not real
and imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled
to issue the checks for fear that her
mothers health might deteriorate
further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital or worse, her mother might commit suicide. This is speculative fear; it is not the
uncontrollable fear contemplated
by law. Ty has also
failed to convince the Court that she was left with no choice but to commit a crime.
Moreover, Ty does not deny having issued the seven (7) checks subject of this case. And what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum..