Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

VICKY C. TY, petitioner vs.


September 27, 2004

G.R. No. 149275

Ponente: Tinga, J.

Court Deciding: Second Division

Relief: Review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

Doctrine: State of necessity Issuance of bouncing checks

- In B.P. Blg. 22 or commonly known as the Bouncing Checks Law punishes the mere act of
issuing a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance.
- The thrust of this law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into
- A required element of B.P. Blg. 22 is that, issued checks were worthless and the fact of its
worthlessness is known to the appellant at the time of their issuance.


Petitioner found guilty of seven (7) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 after issuing checks to
Manila Doctors Hospital as payment for her mother and sisters confinement fee amounting to P1, 075,


- Petitioner Vicky Ty filed the instant Petition for Review under Rule 45, seeking to set aside
the decision of the CA Eight Division in CA-G.R. CR No. 20995 promulgated on July 31, 2001.
- RTC of Manila found her guilty of seven counts of violation of B.P Blg. 22 otherwise known
as the Bouncing Checks Law.
- Ty willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously make or draw and issue to Manila Doctors Hospital
to apply on account or for value to Editha L. Vecino dated May 30, 1993 payable to Manila
Doctors Hospital in the amount of P30,000, well knowing that at the time of issue she did
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full
upon its presentment.
- Account was dishonered by the drawee bank for Account Closed and despite receipt of
notice of such dishonor because Ty failed to pay Manila Doctors Hospital the amount of
check or to make arrangement for full payment within five (5) banking days.
- Petitioner claimed that she issued the checks because of an uncontrollable fear of greater
injury and was forced to obtain release for her mother whom the hospital inhumanely and
harshly treated and would not discharge unless the hospital bills are paid.

Issue: Was the defense of uncontrollable fear tenable to warrant the exemption from criminal liability of
the petitioner from B.P. Blg. 22?
Held: No, because it is not the laws intent to say that any fear exempts one from criminal liability.


- Invoking fear are not impending or insuperable as to deprive all volition.

- At any rate, requirements for justifying the action of the petitioner was incomplete as to the
requirements of justifying circumstances. Thus, B.P. Blg. 22 punishes an act of issuing a
bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions
relating to its issuance.
- Petitioner, then, violated section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 (Evidence of Knowledge of insufficient
funds) since petitioner was aware of insufficiency of funds on her part and failed to settle
the full payment with Manila Doctors Hospital.