People v.

Buenviaje
Friday, 26 July 2019 10:14 PM

FACTS:
- Jovita Buenviaje, who had not obtained the corresponding certificate of
registration for the practice of medicine in the Philippine Islands from the
Board of Medical Examiners, illegally practiced medicine in Manila
- She assisted, treated, and manipulated people who needed her services as a
doctor.
- Buenviaje had also advertised her practice through means of cards and
newspapers that are published throughout the City of Manila and a sign that
said ‘Dra. Jovita Buenviaje’ that hung up at the door of her office in No. 712
Calle Asuncion.
○ On the day she treated and manipulated the head and body of Regino
Noble in order to cure him for his ailments which he pretended to
suffer, the treatment she used is called ‘thrusting’ by means of the
hand to the spinal column. This treatment happened in her office and
Regino Noble paid her P1 for the treatment.
- According to Buenviaje, she advertised herself as a Doctor of Chiropractic
and that she graduated in August of 1919 from the American University
School of Chiropractic in Chicago, Illinois. However, she was still found guilty
and charged in accordance with Section 2678 of the Administrative Code in
which she was charged P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs.
ISSUE:
- Should Jovita Buenviaje be charged separately on accounts of violating the
Medical Law on two separate acts (illegally practicing Medicine and illegally
representing oneself as a Doctor)?
RULING:
- No, she should not be charged separately since the statute does not make
any distinction between illegally practicing medicine or illegally advertising
oneself as a doctor.
○ Even though the Medical Law appears in the Administrative Law, it
still does not declare any of the penal offenses. Instead, the penal
offenses are contained in the Penal Code (“A person violating any
provision of the Medical Law shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine not more than P300 or by imprisonment for not more than 90
days, in the discretion of the court.”)
○ In United States v. Douglass, the court said that “It is not
objectionable, when a single offense may be committed by the use of
different means, to charge, in the alternative, the various means by
 provision of the Medical Law shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine not more than P300 or by imprisonment for not more than 90
days, in the discretion of the court.”)
○ In United States v. Douglass, the court said that “It is not
objectionable, when a single offense may be committed by the use of
different means, to charge, in the alternative, the various means by
which the crime may have committed”. In this case, it should be noted
that it was not the intention of the legislator that each single act
should be regarded as a separate offense and separate information
presented for each.
○ That the various means of committing the offense is described in more
than one section of the statute does not necessarily effect the general
principle involved; the subdivision of a statute into section is merely a
matter of convenience and while it sometimes may be of some aid in
ascertaining the legislative intent, it is, of course, not conclusive
thereof.