Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICKY C. TY v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 154438 2007-09-05	ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LEON L. JURADO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Such knowledge is legally presumed from the dishonor of the checks for insufficiency of funds.[36] If not rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction.[37]
	GR NO. 155619 2007-08-14	LEODEGARIO BAYANI v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would substantially affect the disposition of the case. Jurisdiction of this Court over cases elevated from the CA is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law ascribed to the CA, whose factual findings are conclusive and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[9]
	GR NO. 150355 2006-07-31	MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL v. SO UN CHUA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Incidentally, with respect to the related criminal case against respondent Ty, this Court, on September 27, 2004, promulgated its Decision entitled Ty v. People of the Philippines,[8] which affirmed the decisions of the lower courts finding respondent Ty guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22 and ordering her to pay the private complainant, herein petitioner, the total amount of the dishonored checks.
	GR NO. 150355 2006-07-31	MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL v. SO UN CHUA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
But as to the propriety of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the postdated checks to cover the amount stated in the Promissory Note dated June 5, 1992, this Court must refer to the discussion of the recent case of Ty v. People of the Philippines[119] where this Court affirmed the conviction of respondent Ty for the issuance of bouncing checks addressed to the petitioner herein. While the instant case is to be distinguished from the Ty case in nature, applicable law, the standards of evidence, and in the defenses available to the parties, hence, the judgment of conviction in that case should not at all prejudice the disposition of this case, even if the facts coincide, nonetheless, for purposes of convenience and instructive utility, the Court quotes the relevant portions:In this case, far from it, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled to issue the checks a condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother could be discharged for fear that her mother's 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.
	GR NO. 154363 2005-09-13	JOEL P. LIBUIT v. PEOPLE
Factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on review by us, in the absence of any clear showing that the lower courts overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would substantially affect the disposition of the case. The jurisdiction of this Court over cases elevated from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals. The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[12]
	GR NO. 145498 2005-01-17	BENJAMIN LEE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner's claim is not feasible. We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration.[47] Valuable consideration, in turn, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side. It is an obligation to do, or not to do in favor of the party who makes the contract, such as the maker or indorser.[48]