SOLIDUM vs. PEOPLE
GR No. 192123 – March 10, 2014 Bersamin SUBJECT:
Reckless imprudence resultin in serious ph!sical in"uries
FACTS:
Gerald Gerald #l$ert #l$ert Gerca!o Gerca!o %as $orn %ith %ith an imper& imper&ora orate te anus. anus. 2 da!s da!s a&ter a&ter his $irth, $irth, Gerald Gerald 1 under%ent colostom!. colostom!. 3 !ear a&ter, Gerald %as admitted at the 'spital n Ma!nila &or a pull( throuh operation. )etitioner *r. +olidum %as one o& the anesthesioloists. *urin the operation, Gerald eperiences $rad!cardia,2 and %ent into a come. -is coma lasted &or 2 %eeks, $ut he reained consciousness onl! a&ter a month. -e could no loner see, hear or moe. #itated $! her son/s helpless and unepected condition, Ma u Gerca!o loded a complaint &or reckless imprudence resultin in serious ph!sical in"uries. R uilt! o& reckless imprudence resultin in serious ph!sical in"uries. +olidum &ailed to monitor and to properl! reulate the leel o& anesthetic aent administered on Gerald. # #&&irmed. #&&irmed. #pplied the doctrine o& res ipsa liquitor. ISSUE:
516 7'N the doctrine doctrine o& res ipsa loquitor %as %as applica$le 526 7'N *r. *r. +olidum %as lia$le &or &or criminal nelience. HELD:
516 Res Ipsa Liquito Liq uitorr cannot $e applied. R8 is literall! translated as the thin or the transaction speaks &or itsel&.: 8t means that %here the thin %hich causes in"ur! is sho%n to $e under the manaement o& the de&endant, and the accident is such as in the ordinar! course o& thins does not happen i& those %ho hae the manaement use proper case, it a&&ords reasona$le eidence, in the a$sence o& an eplanation $! the de&endant, that the accident arose &rom %ant o& case.: 8t is applied in con"unction %ith the doctrine o& common kno%lede. -o%eer, the doctrine is not a rule o& su$stantie la%, $ut merel! a mode o& proo& or a mere procedural conenience. he doctrine, %hen applica$le to the &acts and circumstances o& a ien case, is not meant to and does not dispense %ith the re;uirement o& proo& o& culpa$le nelience aainst the part! chared. 8t merel! determines or reulates %hat shall $e prima $e prima facie eidence facie eidence thereo&, and help the plainti&& in proin a $reach o& dut!. 8t can $e inoked on %hen, under the circumstances inoled, direct eidence is a$sent and not readil! aaila$le.
1 A surgical procedure to bring one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal wall, enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body. 2 An abnormally slow heart rate of less than 60 beats per minute. A normal heartbeat is between 60 and 100 beats per minute.
526 N'> Negligence is de&ined as the &ailure to o$sere &or the protection o& the interest o& another person that deree o& care, precaution, and iilance that the circumstances "ustl! demand, %here$! such other person su&&ers in"ur!. Reckless imprudence, on the other hand, consists o& oluntaril! doin or &ailin to do, %ithout malice, an act &rom %hich material damae results $! reason o& an inecusa$le lack o& precaution on the part o& the person per&ormin or &ailin to per&orm such act. he prosecution did not proe the elements o& reckless imprudence BR* $ecause the circumstances cited $! the # %ere insu&&icient to esta$lish that *r. +olidum had $een uilt! o& inecusa$le lack o& precaution in monitorin the administration o& the anesthetic aent o& Gerald. #n action upon medical nelience – %hether criminal, ciil or administratie – calls &or the plainti&& to proe $! competent eidence each o& the &ollo%in 4 elements, namel!= a6 he dut! o%ned $! the ph!sician to the patient, as created $! the ph!sician(patient relationship, to act in accordance %ith the speci&ic norms or standards esta$lished $! his pro&ession= $6 he $reach o& the dut! $! the ph!sician/s &ailin to act in accordance %ith the applica$le standard o& care= c6 he causation, i.e., there must $e a reasona$l! close and causal connection $et%een the nelient act or omission and the resultin in"ur!= and d6 he damaes su&&ered $! the patient. he standard o& care is an o$"ectie standard $! %hich the conduct o& a ph!sician sued &or nelience or malpractice ma! $e measured, and it does not depend, there&ore, on an! indiidual ph!sician?s o%n kno%lede either. 8n attemptin to &i a standard $! %hich a court ma! determine %hether the ph!sician has properl! per&ormed the re;uisite dut! to%ard the patient, epert medical testimon! &rom $oth plainti&& and de&ense eperts is re;uired. he "ude, as the trier o& &act, ultimatel! determines the standard o& care, a&ter listenin to the testimon! o& all medical eperts he testimonies the prosecution presented did not proe $e!ond reasona$le dou$t that *r. +olidum had $een recklessl! imprudent in administerin the anesthetic aent to Gerald. *r. +olidum %as criminall! chared &or &ailin to monitor and reulate properl! the leels o& anesthesia administered to said Gerla and usin 100@ halothan and other anesthetic medications.: -o%eer, the &indins o& *r. Aertido, one o& the anesthesioloist, %as reealinl! concluded that althouh the anesthesioloists &ollo%ed the normal routine and precautionar! procedures, still h!proia3 and its correspondin side e&&ects did occur.: -ence, 100@ halothan is not %hat should $e administered, it should $e 100@ o!en.
3 Deciency in the amount of the oxygen reaching the tissues.
