Ty vs People- Consideration Nego

VICKY C. TY, petitioner,

vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

Facts: Ty’s mother and sister were confined in Manila Doctors Hospital. As patient’s daughter, she signed an Acknowledgment for Responsibility for Payment for a total liability of 1,075,592.95. Ty the issued a promissory note and to assure payment of the obligation, she drew several postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital. The 7 checks were deposited on due date but all of them were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Since the demand letters were not heeded, 7 informations for BP 22 were filed.

On her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of "an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury." She said that she was forced to issue checks for fear that her mother contemplated suicide because the inhumane and harsh treatment at the hospital and would not be discharged if the bills were not paid. The court ruled in favor of the prosecution finding Ty guilty of 7 counts of BP. 22. This decision was likewise affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Issue: 1. WON checks were issued under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of a greater injury and must be acquitted. 2. WON there is absence of Valuable Consideration in the issuance of the checks. Held: 1. No. For this exempting circumstance to be invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (1) existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. In the case at bar, that fear was not real and imminent. There was no showing that the illness of her mother was so life threatening that would induce a well-grounded apprehension of death. Moreover, the allegation that Ty, was not left with any recourse but to commit a crime has no merit. She admitted that collateral such as post-dated checks or jewelries was required in lieu of the discharge of her mother. 2. Yes. Consideration is presumed upon the issuance of check. Ty has the onus to prove that the checks were issued without consideration. She must present convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption. In this case, Ty’s mother and sister availed of the services and the facilities of the hospital. For the care given to her kin, Ty had a legitimate obligation to pay the hospital by virtue of her relationship with them and by force of her signature on her mother’s Contract of Admission acknowledging responsibility for payment, and on the promissory note she executed in favor of the hospital. In the case of Bridges v. Vann, it said

that "it is no defense to an action on a promissory note for the maker to say that there was no consideration which was beneficial to him personally; it is sufficient if the consideration was a benefit conferred upon a third person, or a detriment suffered by the promisee, at the instance of the promissor.