I

INTRODUCTION
Definition of Medical Jurisprudence

Differentiate Legal Medicine and Forensic Medicine

Purpose of Medical Jurisprudence

II
MEDICAL PRACTICE
What is the “practice of medicine”?

1. Board of Medicine et. al. vs. Yasuyuki Ota, G.R. No. 166097

Acts Constituting the Practice of Medicine: Sec.10, Art. III of the Medical Act of 1959, as
amended

Acts NOT considered as Practice of Medicine: Sec.11, Art. III, Medical Act of 1959, as
amended

Faith Healing

2. People vs. Handzik, 102 N.E. (2d) 340 Ill. 1951.

3. People vs. Wendel, 68 N.Y.S. (2d) N.Y. 1946.
4. People vs. Cole, 219 N.Y. 98, 113 N.E. 790 L.R.A. 1917 C 816
5. People vs. Klinger, Ill. 11 N.E. 40
6. State Board of Medical Examiners vs. Maxwell, N.J. 181 A. 694.

Qualified to Practice Medicine .in the Philippines: Sec. 8, Art. III, Medical Act of 1959 as
amended

Limited Practice: Sec.12, Art. III, Medical Act of 1959 as amended

III
ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF MEDICINE
Definition of Illegal Practice of Medicine: Sec.28, Art. IV, Medical Act of 1959 as amended

7. People vs. Ventura, G.R. No. L-15079

8. People vs. Buenviaje, 47 Phil. 536
9. Crisostomo vs. SEC, G.R. Nos. 89095 & 89555
10. People vs. Quebral,supra.
11. People vs. Hatani, supra.
12. People vs. Buenviaje, supra.

Liabilities

A. Criminal in nature;

13. People vs. Quebral, 68 Phil. 564

B. Intent is immaterial;

14. People vs. Anunciacion Vda. De Golez, G.R. No. L-14160

C. It is independent from the result of the practice; and

D. It is independent from other crimes committed with it.

 15. People vs. Hatani, G.R. Nos. 78813-14
IV
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

Nature of the relationship

Requisites of a contractual relationship

16. Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, G.R. No. 118141

17. Santiago A. del Rosario, et al., vs. Honorable Alfredo Bengzon, G.R. No. 88265

STAGES OF PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

a. Commencement
b. Termination

Forms of Physician-Patient Relationship

Some Instances where there is no Physician-Patient Relationship by DECISIONS OF

COURTS

a. Pre-employment PE for purposes of determining whether an applicant is suitable

for employment;
b. Physical examination for eligibility for insurance;
c. Physician appointed by court to examine the accused;
d. In performing an autopsy;
e. Casual consultation in an unordinary place.

DUTIES and OBLIGATIONS Imposed on the Physician in the Course of Physician-

Patient Relationship

18. Carillo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 86890

DUTIES and OBLIGATIONS Imposed on the Patient in the Course of the Physician-
Patient Relationship

RIGHTS OF PHYSICIAN

a. Inherent Rights
b. Incidental Rights
c. Right To Choose Patients; Exceptions
d. Right to withhold information; Exceptions

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS

a. RIGHT TO GIVE CONSENT TO DIANOSTIC PROCEDURES

i. Instances When Consent Is Not Necessary
ii. Persons Who Can Give consent
b. RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF
c. RIGHT OF PRIVACY
d. RIGHT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Some instances where confidentiality is not applicable:
a. When such disclosure is necessary to serve the best interest of justice;
b. When the disclosure will serve public health and safety;
c. When the patient waives its confidentiality.
 c. RIGHT TO CHOOSE HIS PHYSICIANS
d. RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT
a. Doctrine of parens patriae
V
LIABILITIES OF PHYSICIANS
Administrative: Sec 24, Medical Act of 1959 as amended.

Civil: Breach of Contract: Art 19,20,21, 2176 NCC

Criminal: RPC, SPL, other related laws which have imprisonment as penalty
VI
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Definition of Medical Negligence

19. Carillo vs. People, G.R. No. 86890

20. Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 122445

Elements:

21. Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, supra.

22. Peter Paul Patrick Lucas, Fatima Gladys Lucas, Abbeygail Lucas And Gillian
Lucas Vs. Dr. Prospero Ma. C. Tuaño

Physicians may become professionally liable for malpractice in the following ways:
a. Through the physician’s own negligence: failing to conform to generally accepted
medical practice;
b. Through the negligence of the physician’s employees: Respondeat Superior;
c. Through the physician’s failure to obtain the informed consent of the patient prior
to treatment;
d. Through breach of physician-patient contractual relationship (i.e., abandoning
patient, disclosing confidential information, or guaranteeing a cure or some other
specific result); and
e. Through the negligence of the physician’s partners.

Standard of Care; Doctrines

a. No matter what a healthcare provider does, he will not be found liable if the
standard of care is maintained. A practitioner who conducts himself in
conformity with the standard of care will not be held liable even if the treatment
proved unsuccessful.
b. The existence of poor treatment or surgery result does not in any way raise a
presumption of the violation of the standard of care. Plaintiff must still prove a
standard of care violation.
c. Where a healthcare provider makes an error in judgment, if there is no standard
of care violation, the plaintiff has no case.
d. The standard of care does not call for a practitioner to use the highest skill
known to medical science.
e. Under most circumstances, if evidence suggests that there were alternative
recognized methods of treatment available, a practitioner would not be found
negligent for selecting the wrong one as long as it is a “recognized” treatment
choice.
 f. The standard of care governing medical specialists requires the exercise of
professional conduct normally exhibited by specialists in the same or similar
locality under similar circumstances.

Other Applicable Doctrines

a. Proximate Cause
23. LBC vs. Sherwin Monterola y Oyon-Oyon GR No. 101683
b. Doctrine of Efficient Intervening Cause
c. Doctrine of Vicarious Liability
d. Doctrine of Ostensible Agent
e. Borrowed Servant Doctrine
f. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
24. Batiquin vs. CA, G.R. No. 118231
25. Ramos vs. CA, G.R. No. 124354
26. Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital
27. Dr. Milagros L. Cantre vs. SPS. JOHN DAVID Z. GO and NORA S. GO, G.R. No.
160889
28. Vilvices, Inc. v. Agana; G.R. No. 126467, Jan. 31, 2007.
g. Doctrine of Common Knowledge
h. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
i. Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
j. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
k. Fellow Servant Doctrine
l. Rescue Doctrine
m. Captain of the Ship Doctrine
29. Ramos vs. CA
VII
LIABILITIES OF HOSPITALS

Definition of Hospital: Sec.2(a), RA 4226, Hospital Licensure Act

Classification, according to Control and Financial Support

1. Public/Government – operated and maintained either partially or wholly by the

national, provincial, municipal, or city government or other political subdivision, or by
any department, division, board or other agency thereof. (Sec. 2(b) RA 4226)

2. Private – privately owned, especially established and operated with funds raised and
contributed through donations, or private capital or other means. (Sec. 2(C), RA4226)

Liabilities of Hospitals for the Wrongful Acts of their Agents

Rules applied in determining the vicarious liability for the negligent acts of the resident
physicians, nurses and others employees:

a. Principle of administrative/ministerial as against professional/medical duties;

b. Power of Control;
c. Contract of Service;
d. Independent Contractor Theory; and
e. Sole Responsibility vs. Shared Responsibility
 VIII
APPLICATION OF LEGAL MEDICINE TO LAW
CIVIL LAW

a. determination and termination of civil personality: Article 40, 41, 42 of Civil Code;
b. limitation or restriction of a natural person’s capacity to act;
c. The marriage and legal separation: Article 38 and 39;
d. Paternity and Filiation;
Medicolegal Importance of Impotence: Art 255,85,166,164,172 NCC
e. Testamentary Capacity of a person making a will; and
f. The right to hereditary succession

CRIMINAL LAW

a. Felonies & circumstances which affect criminal liability

30. People vs. Formigones 87 Phil 658
31. People vs. Ancao & Aguilar 49 Phil 887
32. People vs. Taneo 58 Phil 225
33. People vs. Gimena 55 Phil 604
34. People vs. Lacena 69 Phil 350
35. People vs Umawid GR No. 208719
b. Civil liability ex delicto
c. Crimes relative to opium and prohibited drugs
d. Crimes against persons
Rape
36. People vs. Cruz GR No. 202122
37. People vs. Jumawan GR No. 187495
38. People vs. Geronimo Boromeo y Marco GR No. 150501
39. People vs. Ritter GR No. 88582
40. People vs Jalosjos GR No. 132875-76
e. Crimes against chastity
Adultery and Concubinage
41. Eduardo Arroyo, Jr. vs. People GR No. 96602
f. Crimes against Civil Status of persons
g. Quasi-offenses

REMEDIAL LAW

a. Physical and mental examination of a person

b. Hospitalization of insane persons
c. Rules on Evidence
Chain of Custody
42. People vs Propeta GR No. 193763

Expert Witness; Exception: Res Ipsa Loquitur

43. Ramos vs. CA, G.R. No. 124354
44. Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 122445
45. Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, G.R. No. 130547
46. Dr. Pedro Dennis Cereno, and Dr. Santos Zafe vs. Court Of Appeals, Spouses
Diogenes S. Olavere and Fe R. Serrano, G.R. No. 167366
47. Fe Cayao-Lasam vs. SPOUSES CLARO and EDITHA RAMOLETE G.R. No.
159132
 48. Spouses Fredelicto Flores (deceased) and FELICISIMA FLORES vs. Spouses
Dominador Pineda and Virginia Saclolo, and Florencio, Candida, Marta,
Godofredo, Baltazar and Lucena, all surnamed PINEDA, as heirs of the deceased
Teresita S. Pineda, and United Doctors Medical Center, Inc., G.R. No. 158996
d. Change of Name
49. Silverio vs. Republic GR No. 17489
50. Cagandahan Case

OTHER LAWS

a. Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act

51. Jaime D. Dela Cruz vs. People G.R. No. 200748
b. Youth and Child Welfare Code
c. Insurance Law;
d. Labor Code;
e. Employee’s Compensation Law;
f. Anti-violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004.
g. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
h. Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Battered Child Syndrome
Medical Evidence to show Physical Injuries due to child abuse
Factors to be considered to suspect child abuse
52. People vs. Jenny Likiran alias “LOLOY” GR No. 201858

IX
DEATH
Legal Presumption: Rule 131, Sec 5 ROC

Medico legal investigation of Death

Death Certificate
53. Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc vs. CA GR No. 83376
Euthanasia

54. Karen Ann Quinlan Case

55. Nancy Cruzan Case
56. Terri Schiavo Case

Abortion
Therapeutic Abortion as Justifying Circumstance
57. Sternberg vs. Carhart

Autopsy

58. People vs Operana GR No. 120546

Donation of Human Organs

X
DNA AS EVIDENCE
What is DNA test?

59. People vs. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656

60. People vs. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224
 61. Herrera vs. Alba, G.R. No. 148220

Initial reaction of the Court to DNA Evidence

62. Pe Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 741 (1997)

63. Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125901

Admissibility and Probative Value

64. People vs. Vallejo, supra.

DNA Evidence admissible; right against self-incrimination

65. People vs. Yatar, supra.

66. In re: The Writ of habeas corpus for Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 150224
67. People vs. Janson, G.R. No. 125938
68. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571
69. Herrera vs. Alba, G.R. No. 148220

When DNA Evidence is not necessary

70. Andal vs. People, G.R. No. 138286-69