Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
BELLOSILLO, J.:p
These are consolidated petitions involving the same
parties although dwelling on different issues.
G.R. No. 117817. On 5 July 1993 private respondents
Arlene de Guzman, Violeta Meneses, Celerina Navarro,
Jose Ramoncito Navarro, Arnel Herrera and Geraldine
Elizabeth Pagilagan filed an amended petition for
mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Manila
against petitioners Professional Regulation Commission,
Chairman Hermogenes Pobre and Associate
Commissioner Armando Pascual. The amended petition,
docketed as Civil Case No. 93-66530, alleged that
private respondents were graduates of the Fatima
College of Medicine who took the examinations for
physicians conducted by petitioners on 13, 14, 20 and
21 February 1993; that despite their having passed the
examinations petitioners arbitrarily refused to perform
the legal duty of administering private respondents'
oaths and illegally withheld their licenses to practice
medicine; and, that petitioners maliciously singled out
respondents for having obtained unusually high ratings
especially inBiochemistry, and Obstetrics and
Gynecology. Thus private respondents prayed that a
preliminary mandatory injunction be issued ordering
CRUZ, J.:
The issue before us is mediocrity. The question is
whether a person who has thrice failed the National
Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it
again.
The petitioner contends he may not, under its rule thath) A student shall be allowed only three
(3) chances to take the NMAT. After
three (3) successive failures, a student
shall not be allowed to take the NMAT
for the fourth time.
The private respondent insists he can, on constitutional
grounds.
But first the facts.
The private respondent is a graduate of the University
of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in
Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the NMAT
three times and flunked it as many times. 1 When he
applied to take it again, the petitioner rejected his
application on the basis of the aforesaid rule. He then
went to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila, to compel his admission to the test.
In his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked
his constitutional rights to academic freedom and
quality education. By agreement of the parties, the
private respondent was allowed to take the NMAT
scheduled on April 16, 1989, subject to the outcome of
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
DR. VICTORIA L. BATIQUIN and ALLAN
BATIQUIN, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES QUEDO D.
ACOGIDO and FLOTILDE G. VILLEGAS, respondents.
10
11
12
KAPUNAN, J.:
The Hippocratic Oath mandates physicians to give
primordial consideration to the health and welfare of
their patients. If a doctor fails to live up to this precept,
he is made accountable for his acts. A mistake, through
gross negligence or incompetence or plain human error,
may spell the difference between life and death. In this
sense, the doctor plays God on his patient's fate. 1
In the case at bar, the Court is called upon to rule
whether a surgeon, an anesthesiologist and a hospital
should be made liable for the unfortunate comatose
condition of a patient scheduled for cholecystectomy. 2
13
14
15
16
17
SO ORDERED.
10
18
19
20
44
21
22
23
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did you pull away the
tube immediately?
A: You do not pull
the . . .
Q: Did you or did you
not?
A: I did not pull the tube.
Q: When you said
"mahirap yata ito," what
were you referring to?
A: "Mahirap yata itong iintubate," that was the
patient.
Q: So, you found some
difficulty in inserting the
tube?
A: Yes, because of (sic)
my first attempt, I did
not see right away. 51
Curiously in the case at bar, respondent Dra. Gutierrez
made the haphazard defense that she encountered
hardship in the insertion of the tube in the trachea of
Erlinda because it was positioned more anteriorly
(slightly deviated from the normal anatomy of a
person) 52 making it harder to locate and, since Erlinda
is obese and has a short neck and protruding teeth, it
made intubation even more difficult.
The argument does not convince us. If this was indeed
observed, private respondents adduced no evidence
demonstrating that they proceeded to make a thorough
assessment of Erlinda's airway, prior to the induction of
anesthesia, even if this would mean postponing the
procedure. From their testimonies, it appears that the
observation was made only as an afterthought, as a
means of defense.
The pre-operative evaluation of a patient prior to the
administration of anesthesia is universally observed to
lessen the possibility of anesthetic accidents. Preoperative evaluation and preparation for anesthesia
begins when the anesthesiologist reviews the patient's
medical records and visits with the patient, traditionally,
the day before elective surgery. 53 It includes taking the
patient's medical history, review of current drug
24
25
62
regarding
26
27
28
29
30
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This petition for review1 assails the 6 February 1998
Decision2 and 21 March 2000 Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45641. The Court of Appeals
affirmed in toto the 22 November 1993 Decision4 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, finding Dr.
Oscar Estrada solely liable for damages for the death of
his patient, Corazon Nogales, while absolving the
remaining respondents of any liability. The Court of
Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales
("Corazon"), who was then 37 years old, was under the
exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Oscar Estrada ("Dr.
Estrada") beginning on her fourth month of pregnancy
or as early as December 1975. While Corazon was on
her last trimester of pregnancy, Dr. Estrada noted an
increase in her blood pressure and development of leg
edema5 indicating preeclampsia,6 which is a dangerous
complication of pregnancy.7
Around midnight of 25 May 1976, Corazon started to
experience mild labor pains prompting Corazon and
Rogelio Nogales ("Spouses Nogales") to see Dr. Estrada
at his home. After examining Corazon, Dr. Estrada
advised her immediate admission to the Capitol Medical
Center ("CMC").
On 26 May 1976, Corazon was admitted at 2:30 a.m. at
the CMC after the staff nurse noted the written
admission request8 of Dr. Estrada. Upon Corazon's
admission at the CMC, Rogelio Nogales ("Rogelio")
executed and signed the "Consent on Admission and
Agreement"9 and "Admission Agreement."10 Corazon
was then brought to the labor room of the CMC.
Dr. Rosa Uy ("Dr. Uy"), who was then a resident
physician of CMC, conducted an internal examination of
31
32
33
xxxx
34
35
36
37
CMC, Dr. Espinola, Dr. Lacson, and Dr. Uy, who have filed
their comments, the Court deems it proper to resolve
the individual liability of the remaining respondents to
put an end finally to this more than two-decade old
controversy.
a) Dr. Ely Villaflor
Petitioners blame Dr. Ely Villaflor for failing to diagnose
the cause of Corazon's bleeding and to suggest the
correct remedy to Dr. Estrada.60 Petitioners assert that it
was Dr. Villaflor's duty to correct the error of Nurse
Dumlao in the administration of hemacel.
The Court is not persuaded. Dr. Villaflor admitted
administering a lower dosage of magnesium sulfate.
However, this was after informing Dr. Estrada that
Corazon was no longer in convulsion and that her blood
pressure went down to a dangerous level.61 At that
moment, Dr. Estrada instructed Dr. Villaflor to reduce
the dosage of magnesium sulfate from 10 to 2.5 grams.
Since petitioners did not dispute Dr. Villaflor's allegation,
Dr. Villaflor's defense remains uncontroverted. Dr.
Villaflor's act of administering a lower dosage of
magnesium sulfate was not out of her own volition or
was in contravention of Dr. Estrada's order.
b) Dr. Rosa Uy
Dr. Rosa Uy's alleged negligence consisted of her failure
(1) to call the attention of Dr. Estrada on the incorrect
dosage of magnesium sulfate administered by Dr.
Villaflor; (2) to take corrective measures; and (3) to
correct Nurse Dumlao's wrong method of hemacel
administration.
The Court believes Dr. Uy's claim that as a second year
resident physician then at CMC, she was merely
authorized to take the clinical history and physical
examination of Corazon.62 However, that routine internal
examination did not ipso facto make Dr. Uy liable for the
errors committed by Dr. Estrada. Further, petitioners'
imputation of negligence rests on their baseless
assumption that Dr. Uy was present at the delivery
room. Nothing shows that Dr. Uy participated in
delivering Corazon's baby. Further, it is unexpected from
Dr. Uy, a mere resident physician at that time, to call
the attention of a more experienced specialist, if ever
she was present at the delivery room.
c) Dr. Joel Enriquez
Petitioners fault Dr. Joel Enriquez also for not calling the
attention of Dr. Estrada, Dr. Villaflor, and Nurse Dumlao
about their errors.63 Petitioners insist that Dr. Enriquez
should have taken, or at least suggested, corrective
measures to rectify such errors.
The Court is not convinced. Dr. Enriquez is an
anesthesiologist whose field of expertise is definitely not
obstetrics and gynecology. As such, Dr. Enriquez was
not expected to correct Dr. Estrada's errors. Besides,
there was no evidence of Dr. Enriquez's knowledge of
38
39
V.
SO ORDERED.15
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by
the Court of Appeals. Hence, the instant petition
assigning the following as errors and issues:
I.
VI.
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT AND THE COURT
[OF] APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHEN, CONTRARY TO THE DETAILED
PROCEDURES DONE BY PETITIONER, BOTH RULED THAT
40
41
FE CAYAO-LASAM, petitioner,
vs.
SPOUSES CLARO and EDITHA
RAMOLETE, respondents.*
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
x x x
x
64
65
66
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari is the
Decision1 dated June 15, 2004 as well as the
Resolution2dated September 1, 2004 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 58013 which modified
the Decision3dated September 5, 1997 of the Regional
Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 8 in Civil Case No.
8904.
The factual antecedents:
On July 7, 1993, respondents 11-year old daughter,
Angelica Soliman, underwent a biopsy of the mass
located in her lower extremity at the St. Lukes Medical
Center (SLMC). Results showed that Angelica was
suffering from osteosarcoma, osteoblastic type,4 a highgrade (highly malignant) cancer of the bone which
usually afflicts teenage children. Following this diagnosis
and as primary intervention, Angelicas right leg was
amputated by Dr. Jaime Tamayo in order to remove the
tumor. As adjuvant treatment to eliminate any
remaining cancer cells, and hence minimize the chances
of recurrence and prevent the disease from spreading to
other parts of the patients body (metastasis),
chemotherapy was suggested by Dr. Tamayo. Dr.
Tamayo referred Angelica to another doctor at SLMC,
herein petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist.
On August 18, 1993, Angelica was admitted to SLMC.
However, she died on September 1, 1993, just eleven
(11) days after the (intravenous) administration of the
first cycle of the chemotherapy regimen. Because SLMC
refused to release a death certificate without full
payment of their hospital bill, respondents brought the
cadaver of Angelica to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame for post-mortem
examination. The Medico-Legal Report issued by said
institution indicated the cause of death as "Hypovolemic
shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and
Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation."5
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
x x x x.
The trial court found petitioners negligent in not
immediately conducting surgery on Raymond. It noted
that petitioners have already finished operating on
Charles Maluluy-on as early as 10:30 in the evening,
and yet they only started the operation on Raymond at
around 12:15 early morning of the following day. The
trial court held that had the surgery been performed
promptly, Raymond would not have lost so much blood
and, therefore, could have been saved.10
The trial court also held that the non-availability of Dr.
Tatad after the operation on Maluluy-on was not a
sufficient excuse for the petitioners to not immediately
operate on Raymond. It called attention to the
testimony of Dr. Tatad herself, which disclosed the
possibility of calling a standby anesthesiologist in that
situation. The trial court opined that the petitioners
could have just requested for the standby
anesthesiologist from Dr. Tatad, but they did not.
Lastly, the trial court faulted petitioners for the delay in
the transfusion of blood on Raymond.
On appeal, the CA in a decision dated 21 February 2005
affirmed in toto the judgment rendered by the RTC
finding herein petitioners guilty of gross negligence in
the performance of their duties and awarding damages
to private respondents.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court assailing the CA decision on the
following grounds:
1. THAT THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT
PETITIONERS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES;
76
77
xxxx
A: The blood arrived at 1:40 a.m. and that was the time
when this blood was hooked to the patient.
78
Q: And that was the reason why you could not use the
blood because it was being crossmatched?
A: No, sir. That was done only for a few minutes. We did
not transfuse at that time because there was no
need.There is a necessity to transfuse blood when
we saw there is gross bleeding inside the
body. 20(Emphasis supplied)
During the operation, on the other hand, Dr. Cereno was
already able to discover that 3,200 cc of blood was
stocked in the thoracic cavity of Raymond due to the
puncture in the latters left lung. Even then, however,
immediate blood transfusion was not feasible because:
Q: Now considering the loss of blood suffered by
Raymund Olavere, why did you not immediately
transfuse blood to the patient and you waited for 45
minutes to elapse before transfusing the blood?
79
80
81
Fiscal Formoso:
Q: Now, he is an intern did you not consult the doctors,
Dr. Jarcia or Dra. Pamittan to confirm whether you
should go home or not?
A: Dra. Pamittan was inside the cubicle of the nurses
and I asked her, you let us go home and you dont even
clean the wounds of my son.
Q: And what did she [tell] you?
A: They told me they will call a resident doctor, sir.
xxx
xxx
xxx
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you [tell] her?
A: I told her, sir, while she was cleaning the wounds of
my son, are you not going to x-ray up to the knee
because my son was complaining pain from his ankle up
to the middle part of the right leg.
Q: And what did she tell you?
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
82
xxx
xxx
xxx
Fiscal Macapagal:
Q: And was that the correct respon[se] to the medical
problem that was presented to Dr. Jarcia and Dra.
Bastan?
A: I would say at that stage, yes. Because they have
presented the patient and the history. "At sabi nila,
nadaanan lang po ito." And then, considering their year
of residency they are still junior residents, and they are
not also orthopedic residents but general surgery
residents, its entirely different thing. Because if you are
an orthopedic resident, I am not trying to saybut if I
were an orthopedic resident, there would be more
precise and accurate decision compare to a general
surgery resident in so far as involved.
Q: You mean to say there is no supervisor attending the
emergency room?
A: At the emergency room, at the Manila Doctors
Hospital, the supervisor there is a consultant that
usually comes from a family medicine. They see where a
certain patient have to go and then if they cannot
manage it, they refer it to the consultant on duty. Now
at that time, I dont [know] why they dont.Because at
that time, I think, it is the decision. Since the x-rays.
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and
experience are competent to testify as to whether a
patient has been treated or operated upon with a
reasonable degree of skill and care. However, testimony
as to the statements and acts of physicians, external
appearances, and manifest conditions which are
observable by any one may be given by non-expert
witnesses. Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is
applicable, the court is permitted to find a physician
negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient,
without the aid of expert testimony, where the court
from its fund of common knowledge can determine the
proper standard of care. Where common knowledge and
experience teach that a resulting injury would not have
occurred to the patient if due care had been exercised,
an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to
an application of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur without medical evidence, which is ordinarily
required to show not only what occurred but how and
why it occurred. In the case at bench, we give credence
to the testimony of Mrs. Santiago by applying the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be
perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied,
depending upon the circumstances of each case. It is
generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases
where a layman is able to say, as a matter of common
83
84
85
Q: Will you please tell us, for the record, doctor, what is
your specialization?
86
Q: You also said, Doctor, that Dr. Jarcia and Dra. Bastan
are not even an orthopedic specialist.
A: They are general surgeon residents. You have
to man[x] the emergency room, including
neurology, orthopedic, general surgery, they see
everything at the emergency room.
xxxx
Q: But if initially, Alfonso Santiago, Jr. and his case was
presented to you at the emergency room, you would
have subjected the entire foot to x-ray even if the
history that was given to Dr. Jarcia and Dra. Bastan is
the same?
A: I could not directly say yes, because it would still
depend on my examination, we cannot subject the
whole body for x-ray if we think that the damaged was
only the leg.
Q: Not the entire body but the entire leg?
A: I think, if my examination requires it, I would.
Q: So, you would conduct first an examination?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And do you think that with that examination that you
would have conducted you would discover the necessity
subjecting the entire foot for x-ray?
A: It is also possible but according to them, the foot and
the ankle were swollen and not the leg, which
sometimes normally happens that the actual fractured
bone do not get swollen.
xxxx
Q: Doctor, if you know that the patient sustained
a fracture on the ankle and on the foot and the
history that was told to you is the region that was
hit is the region of the foot, will the doctor
subject the entire leg for x-ray?
A: I am an orthopedic surgeon, you have to
subject an x-ray of the leg. Because you have to
consider the kind of fracture that the patient
sustained would you say the exact mechanism of
injury. For example spiral, "paikot yung bale nya,"
so it was possible that the leg was run over, the
patient fell, and it got twisted. Thats why the leg
seems to be fractured.17 [Emphases supplied]
87
88
89
90
Ruling
I.
91
92
93
94
xxxx
In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff
has the burden of establishing appellant's negligence
and for a reasonable conclusion of negligence, there
must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the
surgeon as well as a causal connection of such breach
and the resulting death of his patient. In Chan Lugay v.
St Luke's Hospital, Inc., where the attending physician
was absolved of liability for the death of the
complainants wife and newborn baby, this Court held
that:
"In order that there may be a recovery for an injury,
however, it must be shown that the injury for which
recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence
of the wrong done; the connection between the
negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural
sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient
causes. In other words, the negligence must be the
proximate cause of the injury. For, negligence, no
matter in what it consists, cannot create a right of
action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury
complained of. And the proximate cause of an injury is
that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred."
An action upon medical negligence whether criminal,
civil or administrative calls for the plaintiff to prove by
competent evidence each of the following four
elements, namely: (a) the duty owed by the physician to
the patient, as created by the physician-patient
relationship, to act in accordance with the specific
norms or standards established by his profession; (b)
the breach of the duty by the physicians failing to act in
accordance with the applicable standard of care; (3) the
causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably close and
causal connection between the negligent act or
omission and the resulting injury; and (4) the damages
suffered by the patient.36
In the medical profession, specific norms or standards to
protect the patient against unreasonable risk,
commonly referred to as standards of care, set the duty
of the physician to act in respect of the patient.
Unfortunately, no clear definition of the duty of a
particular physician in a particular case exists. Because
most medical malpractice cases are highly technical,
witnesses with special medical qualifications must
provide guidance by giving the knowledge necessary to
render a fair and just verdict. As a result, the standard
of medical care of a prudent physician must be
determined from expert testimony in most cases; and in
the case of a specialist (like an anesthesiologist), the
standard of care by which the specialist is judged is the
95
96
xxxx
ATTY. COMIA Doctor tell this Honorable Court where is
that 100, 1-0-0 and if there is, you just call me and even
the attention of the Presiding Judge of this Court. Okay,
you read one by one.
WITNESS Well, are you only asking 100%, sir?
(sic).
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
III
WHETHER PETITIONER DR. CABUGAO IS A GENERAL
PRACTITIONER (NOT A SURGEON) AND HAVE EXCLUDED
SURGERY FROM THE LIMITS OFHIS PRACTICE, AND IT
WAS NOT AND NEVER HIS DUTY TO OPERATE THE
PATIENT RODOLFO PALMA JR., THAT WAS WHY HE
REFERRED SUBJECT PATIENT TO A SURGEON, DR.
CLENIO YNZON;
IV
WHETHER THE DEFENSE NEVER STATED THAT THERE IS
GUARANTEE THAT DOING SURGERY WOULD HAVE
SAVED THE PATIENT;
V
WHETHER THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION
INCLUDING PROSECUTION'S EXPERT WITNESSES EVER
DECLARED/TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER DR. CABUGAO
HAD THE DUTY TO PERFORM IMMEDIATE OPERATION ON
RODOLFO PALMA, JR., AND THEY FAILED TO
STATE/SHOW THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH
OF JR WAS ACUTE APPENDICITIS;
VI
WHETHER THE EXPERT WITNESSES PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION EVER QUESTIONED THE MANAGEMENT
AND CARE APPLIED BY PETITIONER DR. CABUGAO;
VII
WHETHER THE EXPERT WITNESSES PRESENTED BY THE
DEFENSE ARE UNANIMOUS IN APPROVING THE METHOD
OF TREATMENT APPLIED BY BOTH ACCUSED DOCTORS
ON SUBJECT PATIENT, AND THEY DECLARED/AFFIRMED
THAT THEY WOULD FIRST PLACE SUBJECT THE PATIENT
UNDER OBSERVATION, AND WOULD NOT PERFORM
IMMEDIATE OPERATION;
VIII
WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER DR. YNZON
WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THE REQUIRED QUANTUM OF
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PATIENT
WAS SPECIFICALLY SUFFERING FROM AND DIED OF
ACUTE APPENDICITIS; and
IX
WHETHER THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT THE SPECIFIC
SURGICAL OPERATION KNOWN AS APPENDECTOMY
CONSTITUTED CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
105
A Yes, sir.16
xxxx
COURT:
106
ATTY. CASTRO:
18
107
Q. So, you are saying then that in order to rule out acute
appendicitis there must be an operation, that is right
Doctor?
A. No, sir. If your diagnosis is toreally determine if it is
an acute appendicitis, you have to operate.21
xxxx
Q. Now Doctor, considering the infection, considering
that there was a [symptom] that causes pain,
considering that JR likewise was feverish and that he
was vomiting, does that not show a disease of acute
appendicitis Doctor?
A. Its possible.
Q. So that if that is possible, are we getting the
impression then Doctor what you have earlier
mentioned that the only way to rule out the suspect
which is acute appendicitis is by surgery, you have said
that earlier Doctor, I just want any confirmation of it?
A. Yes, sir.22
Verily, whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the
requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his
patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert
opinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinions
of qualified physicians stems from its realization that
the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen
in most instances are incapable of intelligently
evaluating.23 From the testimonies of the expert
witnesses presented, it was irrefutably proven that Dr.
Ynzon failed to practice that degree of skill and care
required in the treatment of his patient.
As correctly observed by the appellate court, Dr. Ynzon
revealed want of reasonable skill and care in attending
to the needs of JR by neglecting to monitor effectively
the developmentsand changes on JR's condition during
the observation period, and to act upon the situation
after the 24-hour period when his abdominal pain
persisted and his condition worsened. Lamentable, Dr.
Ynzon appeared to have visited JRbriefly only during
regular rounds in the mornings. He was not there during
the crucial times on June 16, 2000 when JR's condition
started to deteriorate until JR's death. As the attending
surgeon, he should be primarily responsible in
monitoring the condition of JR, as he is in the best
position considering his skills and experience to know if
the patient's condition had deteriorated. While the
resident-doctors-onduty could likewise monitor the
patientscondition, he is the one directly responsible for
the patient as the attending surgeon. Indeed, it is
reckless and gross negligence of duty to relegate his
108
109
110
111
The Facts
The charge against Alverio stemmed from the following
Information:
That on or about the 3rd day of June, 2002, at about
2:00 oclock early dawn, more or less, at
[PPP],3 Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, while [AAA] was on her way to her
grandmothers house from the benefit dance, herein
accused, a cousin of herein complainant, with lewd
designs, and by means of force and intimidation, get
hold of her arm and did then and there drag her to the
back of the barangay hall, by holding her hair and
forcibly laid her to the ground, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously poked her a short bladed weapon known as
pisao forcibly took off her pants and panty and
succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her against
her will to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.4
On July 3, 2003, Alverio, with the assistance of his
counsel de oficio, was arraigned, and he pleaded "not
guilty" to the charge against him. After the pre-trial, trial
on the merits ensued.
During the trial, the prosecution offered the sole
testimony of the private complainant. On the other
hand, the defense presented accused Alverio, Henry
Toledo (Toledo), and Lily Toledo as its witnesses.
The Prosecutions Version of Facts
In the afternoon of June 2, 2002, AAA, along with her
friends Belen Sabanag (Sabanag) and Aileen Sinangote
(Sinangote), went to the house of her grandmother to
attend a dance event.5 At around 8:30 in the evening,
they proceeded to the dance hall because the dance
would start at around 9 oclock.6 During the dance,
Sabanag and Sinangote danced with Alverio but AAA did
not.7 At 2 oclock in the morning of June 3, 2002, AAA
noticed that her friends were no longer at the dance so
she decided to go home to her grandmothers house.8
As she was nearing the barangay hall, Alverio suddenly
appeared and took hold of AAA. She tried to resist him
but he was too strong and he managed to pull her away.
AAA started to cry while she was being dragged towards
112
113
PROS. JOCOBO:
Q Now can you tell now [since] there are no
more persons around except you and the
accused can tell to the Court, or were you able
to reach in the house of your lola?
A Yes sir.
PROS. JOBOCO:
ATTY. SABANDAL:
A Yes sir.
She is 14 years old.
Q Despite of your resistance?
FROM THE COURT:
A Yes sir.
114
A to my vagina.
Q And when Jimmy inserted his penis to your
vagina what did you feel?
A Yes sir.
A I felt pain.
Q And when Jimmy Alverio kissing you several
times were you already naked?
A Yes sir.
A I kept on crying.
xxxx
PROS. JOBOCO:
COURT INTERPRETER:
COURT:
COURT:
A three (3) times.
Q And when you were naked was Jimmy also
naked?
A Yes sir.
xxxx
Q You were naked and Jimmy Alverio was also
naked and Jimmy Alverio was kissing you so
many times, what more did Jimmy Alverio do to
you?
A Lying position.
Q What arm or firearm or what?
Q Or something was placed on the ground?
A a knife.
A On the ground.
COURT:
Alright Pros. Joboco you can proceed the
continuation of your direct examination.
PROS. JOBOCO:
A He poke it at my side.
Q When you said when Jimmy Alverio was
inserted his penis where was inserted?
115
MENDOZA, J.:
This case is here on appeal from the decision 1 of the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (Branch 57), finding
accused-appellant guilty of rape with homicide and
sentencing him to death, and to indemnify the heirs of
the victim in the amount of P480,000.00, and to pay the
costs.
The facts hark back to the afternoon of October 17,
1996, at around 4 o'clock, when the body of six-year old
Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst a
bamboo grove in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The
child's body bore several stab wounds. Jennifer had
been missing since lunch time.
The medical examination conducted the following day
by Dr. Ma. Fe Leticia Macaranas, the rural health
physician of Malasiqui, showed that Jennifer died of
multiple organ failure and hypovolemic shock secondary
to 38 stab wounds at the back. Dr. Macaranas found no
lacerations or signs of inflammation of the outer and
inner labia and the vaginal walls of the victim's
genitalia, although the vaginal canal easily admitted the
little finger with minimal resistance. Noting possible
commission of acts of lasciviousness, Dr. Macaranas
recommended an autopsy by a medico-legal expert of
the NBI. 2
The investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to
accused-appellant Bernardino Domantay, a cousin of
the victim's grandfather, as the lone suspect in the
gruesome crime. At around 6:30 in the evening of that
116
117
118
119
31
and to
SO ORDERED.
In this appeal, accused-appellant alleges that:
32
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
APPRECIATING THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION[S] MADE BY THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
First. Accused-appellant contends that his alleged
confessions to SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel
are inadmissible in evidence because they had been
obtained in violation of Art. III, 12(1) of the
Constitution and that, with these vital pieces of
evidence excluded, the remaining proof of his alleged
guilt, consisting of circumstantial evidence, is
inadequate to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. 33
Art. III, 12 of the Constitution in part provides:
(1) Any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this section or
section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible
in evidence.
This provision applies to the stage of custodial
investigation, that is, "when the investigation is no
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
120
121
122
by a hard rigid
instrument.
Q Could it have been
caused by a human
organ?
A If the human male
organ is erect, fully
erect and hard then it is
possible, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. VALDEZ:
Q In your remarks;
finding at the genital
area indicates the
probability of
penetration of that area
by a hard rigid
instrument, this may
have also been caused
by a dagger used in the
killing of Jennifer
Domantay is that
correct?
A Well, sir when I say
hard rigid instrument it
should not be sharp
pointed and share
rigid, it should be a hard
bl[u]nt instrument.
Q Do you consider a
bolo a bl[u] instrument,
or a dagger?
A The dagger is a sharp
rigid but it is not a
bl[u]nt instrument, sir.
Q This Genital
Examination showed a
complete laceration of
the right side of the
hymen, this may have
been possibly caused by
a dagger, is it not?
A No, sir. I won't say
that this would have
been caused by a
dagger, because a
123
124
From the foregoing, we cannot find that accusedappellant also committed rape. In the special complex
crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the
homicide must be established beyond reasonable
doubt. 73
Third. The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay
the heirs of Jennifer Domantay the amount of
P30,000.00 as actual damages. However, the list of
expenses produced by the victim's father, Jaime
Domantay, only totaled P28,430.00. Of this amount,
only P12,000.00 was supported by a receipt. Art. 2199
of the Civil Code provides that a party may recover
actual or compensatory damages only for such loss as
he has duly proved. Therefore, the award of actual
damages should be reduced to P12,000.00.
DECISION
125
126
127
128
REYES, J.:
For the Court's review is the Decision1 dated August
19,2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 03767, which affirmed with modification the
Decision2 dated June 19, 2008 in Criminal Case No. 8390 of the Regional Trial Court ( RTC), Burgos,
Pangasinan, Branch 70 finding herein accused-appellant
Neil B. Colorado (Colorado) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape.
The Facts
Accused-appellant Colorado was charged with the crime
of rape in an Information that reads:
That sometime in December, 2002 in the evening in
Sitio x x x, Brgy. Iliw-Iliw, Burgos, Pangasinan,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being the brother of
AAA,3 inside their house, by means of force, threats and
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, a twelve
(12) years (sic) old girl, against her will and consent, to
her damage and prejudice.4
129
130
xxxx
Art. 266-B. Penalties. x x x.
131
132
MENDOZA, J.:
This case is here on appeal from the decision 1 of the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (Branch 57), finding
accused-appellant guilty of rape with homicide and
sentencing him to death, and to indemnify the heirs of
the victim in the amount of P480,000.00, and to pay the
costs.
The facts hark back to the afternoon of October 17,
1996, at around 4 o'clock, when the body of six-year old
Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst a
bamboo grove in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The
child's body bore several stab wounds. Jennifer had
been missing since lunch time.
133
134
PROS. QUINIT:
Q Did you introduce
yourself as a media
practitioner?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did you introduce
yourself to the accused?
A I showed to
Bernardino
Domantay alias "Junior
Otot" my I.D. card and I
presented myself as a
media practitioner with
my tape recorder [in]
my hand, sir.
Q What was his reaction
to your request for an
interview?
A He was willing to state
what had happened, sir.
Q What are those
matters which you
brought out in that
interview with the
accused Bernardino
Domantay alias "Junior
Otot"?
A I asked him what was
his purpose for human
interest's sake as a
reporter, why did he
commit that alleged
crime. And I asked also
if he committed the
crime and he answered
"yes." That's it.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. QUINIT:
Q You mentioned about
accused admitting to
you on the commi[ssion]
of the crime, how did
you ask him that?
135
136
As already stated, the trial court found accusedappellant guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of
its decision reads: 30
WHEREFORE, in light of all the
foregoing, the Court hereby finds the
accused, Bernardino Domantay @
"Junior Otot" guilty beyond reasonable
doubt with the crime of Rape with
Homicide defined and penalized under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in
relation and as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 and accordingly, the Court
hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of death by lethal injection, and
to indemnify the heirs of the victim in
the total amount of Four Hundred Eighty
Thousand Pesos (P480,000.00), 31 and to
pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
In this appeal, accused-appellant alleges that:
32
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
APPRECIATING THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION[S] MADE BY THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
First. Accused-appellant contends that his alleged
confessions to SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel
are inadmissible in evidence because they had been
obtained in violation of Art. III, 12(1) of the
Constitution and that, with these vital pieces of
evidence excluded, the remaining proof of his alleged
guilt, consisting of circumstantial evidence, is
inadequate to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. 33
Art. III, 12 of the Constitution in part provides:
(1) Any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of
137
138
139
140
Q Do you consider a
bolo a bl[u] instrument,
or a dagger?
A The dagger is a sharp
rigid but it is not a
bl[u]nt instrument, sir.
Q This Genital
Examination showed a
complete laceration of
the right side of the
hymen, this may have
been possibly caused by
a dagger, is it not?
A No, sir. I won't say
that this would have
been caused by a
dagger, because a
dagger would have
made at its incision . . .
not a laceration, sir.
Q But this laceration
may also have been
caused by other factors
other the human male
organ, is that correct?
A A hard bl[u]nt
instrument, sir could
show.
Q My question is other
than the human male
organ?
A Possible, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q And if there is a
complete erection by a
human organ is this
possible that the
laceration can only be
on the right side of the
hymen?
A Yes, your Honor, its
possible.
Q How about if the
penetration was done by
a finger, was it the same
as the human organ?
A Well, it defends on the
size of the finger that
penetrat[es] that organ,
if the finger is small it
could the superficial
laceration, and if the
finger is large then it is
possible your honor.
Q How about two
fingers?
A Possible, sir.
To be sure, this Court has sustained a number of
convictions for rape with homicide based on purely
circumstantial evidence. In those instances, however,
the prosecution was able to present other tell-tale signs
of rape such as the location and description of the
victim's clothings, especially her undergarments, the
position of the body when found and the
like. 63 In People v. Macalino, 64 for instance, the Court
affirmed a conviction for the rape of a two-year old child
on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 65
The Court notes that the testimony or
medical opinion of Dr. Gajardo that the
fresh laceration had been produced by
sexual intercourse is corroborated by
the testimony given by complainant.
Elizabeth that when she rushed upstairs
upon hearing her daughter suddenly cry
out, she found appellant Macalino
141
142
PUNO, J.:
I
Before us is a Motion To Re-Open Case With Leave Of
Court filed by petitioners who were convicted and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Sandiganbayan
in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 for the double
murder of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Rolando
Galman on August 21, 1983.1
Petitioners were members of the military who acted as
Senator Aquinos security detail upon his arrival in
Manila from his three-year sojourn in the United States.
They were charged, together with several other
members of the military, before the Sandiganbayan for
the killing of Senator Aquino who was fatally shot as he
was coming down from the aircraft of China Airlines at
the Manila International Airport. Petitioners were also
indicted for the killing of Rolando Galman who was also
gunned down at the airport tarmac.
On December 2, 1985, the Sandiganbayan rendered a
Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010-10011 acquitting
all the accused, which include the petitioners. However,
the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan were later
found by this Court to be a sham trial. The Court thus
nullified said proceedings, as well as the judgment of
acquittal, and ordered a re-trial of the cases.2
A re-trial ensued before the Sandiganbayan.
In its decision dated September 28, 1990, the
Sandiganbayan, while acquitting the other accused,
found the petitioners guilty as principals of the crime of
murder in both Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011. It
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua in each
case.3 The judgment became final after this Court
denied petitioners petition for review of the
Sandiganbayan decision for failure to show reversible
error in the questioned decision,4 as well as their
subsequent motion for reconsideration.5
143
144
145
146
147
Finding of a downward
trajectory of the
fatal bullet fatal
to the credibility
of defense witnesses.
148
(underlining supplied)20
xxx
149
150
151