PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
16 scra 871
Descripción completa
Justifying circumstances (state of necessity) exempting circumstances (uncontrollable fear of a greater injury)
This is my digested case about People vs. Ramos, 39 SCRA 236.
full text e-scra copy
crim digestFull description
Full description
case digestFull description
criminal lawFull description
Harry Go vs PeopleFull description
Case Digest - Criminal Case 1Full description
Trial Memorandum
people vs rafanan digest
People vs Go case digest
lawFull description
G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014 DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM, Petitioer, !". PEOPLE OF #$E P$ILIPPINES, Re"%o&et. FA'#S( This appeal is taken taken by a physician-anesthesiol physician-anesthesiologist ogist who has has been pronounced pronounced guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries by the Regional Trial Trial Court (RT (RTC) and the Court Court of Appeals (CA). (CA). e had been been part of the team team of anesthesiologists during the surgical pull-through operation conducted on a threeyear old patient born with an imperforate anus. !erald Albert !ercayo (!erald) was born on "une #$ %&&# with an imperforate anus. Two Two days after his birth$ !erald !erald underwent underwent colostomy$ a surgical surgical procedure procedure to bring bring one end of the large intestine out through through the abdominal wall$ enabling him to e'crete through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body. n ay %*$ %&&+$ !erald$ then three years old$ was admitted at the spital ng aynila for a pull-through operation. The petitioner ,r. ernando olidum (,r. olidum) was the anesthesioligist. anesthesioligist. ,uring the operation$ !erald e'perienced bradycardia$ bradycardia$ and went into a coma. e regained consciousness only after a month. e could no longer see$ hear or mo/e. Agitated by her son0s helpless and une'pected condition$ a. 1u2 !ercayo (1u2) lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries with the City 3rosecutor0s 4ce of anila against the attending physicians. 5pon a 6nding of probable cause$ the City 3rosecutor0s 4ce 6led an information solely against ,r. olidum. The case was initially 6led in the etropolitan etropolitan Trial Trial Court of of anila$ but was was transferred to the RTC pursuant to ection + of Republic Act 7o. 89:& (The amily Courts Act of %&&*). n "uly %&$ #;;<$ the RTC rendered its judgment 6nding ,r. olidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. n "anuary #;$ #;%;$ #;%;$ the CA a4rmed a4rmed the con/iction con/iction of ,r. ,r. olidum.
ISSUE)S*( %) whether or not ,r. olidum was liable for criminal negligence. #) =ether or not ,r. olidum was ci/illy liable >1,? %) 7o #) 7o
RA#IO( @ssue %? ,r. olidum was criminally charged for failing to monitor and regulate properly the le/els of anesthesia administered to said !erald Albert !ercayo and using %;;B halothane and other anesthetic medications. owe/er$ the foregoing circumstances$ taken together$ did not pro/e beyond reasonable doubt that ,r. olidum had been recklessly imprudent in administering the anesthetic agent to !erald. @ndeed$ ,r. ertido0s 6ndings did not preclude the probability that other factors related to !erald0s major operation$ which could or could not necessarily be attributed to the administration of the anesthesia$ had caused the hypo'ia and had then led !erald to e'perience bradycardia. ,r. ertido re/ealingly concluded in his report$ instead$ that although the anesthesiologist followed the normal routine and precautionary procedures$ still hypo'ia and its corresponding side eDects did occur. The e'istence of the probability about other factors causing the hypo'ia has engendered in the mind of the Court a reasonable doubt as to ,r. olidum0s guilt$ and mo/es us to acEuit him of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries.
@ssue F# =e ha/e to clarify that the acEuittal of ,r. olidum would not immediately e'empt him from ci/il liability. Gut we cannot now 6nd and declare him ci/illy liable because the circumstances that ha/e been established here do not present the factual and legal bases for /alidly doing so. is acEuittal did not deri/e only from reasonable doubt. There was really no 6rm and competent showing how the injury to !erard had been caused. That meant that the manner of administration of the anesthesia by ,r. olidum was not necessarily the cause of the hypo'ia that caused the bradycardia e'perienced by !erard. ConseEuently$ to adjudge ,r. olidum ci/illy liable would be to speculate on the cause of the hypo'ia. =e are not allowed to do so$ for ci/il liability must not rest on speculation but on competent e/idence.
