Vicky Ty. Vs. People

Facts: Vicky Ty issued 7 checks for the payment of the hospital bills of her Mother and Sister. Payment to be given to the Petitioner, which is the Manila Doctors Hospital and total bills is around P1,075,592.95 all together, but eventually all of the checks were dishonored, thereafter Vicky Ty assuming the obligation and issuing a promissory note, was found guilty by the trial court for violating 7 counts of BP. 22 or bouncing checks law.In her appeal she sustain her defense that she was force to open an account and issue those checks because of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury and that Manila Doctors Hospital is treating her mother in humane, also it is life threatening for her mother because she is suicidal. But the Appellate court sustains the trial courts decision but with modification that Vicky Ty will only pay fines and will not be imprisoned. Because the court explained that the law punishes the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.The Supreme Court ruled the same, instant petition denied and found Vicky ty guilty of violating 7 counts of BP 22 and pay the fine, in case of insolvency will be subject to subsidiary imprisonment.Issue:Whether or not Vicky ty violated BP 22HELD:The court ruled that Vicky ty had violated or found guilty of violating 7 counts of BP 22, and also the court found out that she knew from the very beginning that those checks that she issued were going to bounce and as advice by her counsel that she will be violating BP 22. That her defense of uncontrollable fear of greater injury cannot be bolstered because this kind of situation is not those contemplated in the revise penal code and as a complete defense of exempting circumstance of Art. 11 the requisites must be complete. The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt the actor from liability under this paragraph: (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.