Case Digest: Solidum vs. People, G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
Rule 111 | Criminal Procedure
Facts:
(1) Gerald Albert Gercayo was born on June 2, 1992 with an imperforate anus.* Two days after his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy.**
*defect that is present from birth (congenital) in which the opening to the anus is missing or blocked. The anus is the opening to the rectum through which stools leave the body.
**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) On 1995, three-year old Gerald, was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. Dr. Fernando Solidum was part of the surgical team. During the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia,* and went into a coma. His coma lasted for two weeks, but he regained consciousness only after a month. He could no longer see, hear or move.
*abnormally slow heart rate of less than 60 beats per minute. A normal heartbeat is
between 60 and 100 beats per minute.
(3) Agitated by her son’s helpless and unexpected condition, Ma. Luz Gercayo lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries with the City Prosecutor’s Office of Manila against the attending physicians. Upon a finding of probable cause, the City Prosecutor’s Office filed an information solely against Dr. Solidum, by failing to monitor and regulate properly the levels of anesthesia administered.
(4) The RTC rendered its judgment finding Dr. Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries, based on his failure to monitor and properly regulate the level of anesthetic agent administered on Gerald by overdosing at 100% halothane.
Assailed Decision:
CA affirmed the conviction of Dr. Solidum by ruling res ipsa loquitor*, because there is no other way, under usual and ordinary conditions, by which the patient can obtain redress
for injury suffered by him.
*the thing or the transaction speaks for itself; negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself.
Prior to the operation, the child was evaluated and found fit for the surgery, with no indication of any known ailment or disability that could pose a risk. The lower court concluded that the accident was due to a failure in the proper administration of anesthesia since no other reasonable explanation could be attributed to the incident.
Issue:
(a) WoN the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable herein; Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence.
(b) WoN Ospital ng Maynila is civilly liable jointly and severally with Dr. Solidum.
Contention:
The defense was able to prove that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner, and no overdosing in the application of the anesthetic agent because there was no 100% halothane administered to the child, but only one (1%) percent and the application thereof, was regulated by an anesthesia machine. Thus, the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitor contradicted the established facts and the law applicable in the case.
Held:
Granted.
ACQUITS Dr. Fernando P. Solidum of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries; and MAKES no pronouncement on costs of suit.
(a) The Court considers the application here of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur inappropriate.
In order to allow resort to the doctrine, therefore, the following essential requisites must first be satisfied, to wit:
(1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
(2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and
(3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.
Although it should be conceded without difficulty that the second and third elements were present, considering that the anesthetic agent and the instruments were exclusively within the control of Dr. Solidum, and that the patient, being then unconscious during the operation, could not have been guilty of contributory negligence, the first element was undeniably wanting. Bradycardia, would not ordinarily occur in the process of a pull-through operation, or during the administration of anesthesia to the patient, but such fact alone did not prove that the negligence of any of his attending physicians, including the anesthesiologists, had caused the injury.
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.
Reckless imprudence, on the other hand, consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.
On the witness stand, Dr. Vertido declared that he made a mistake in reporting a 100% halothane and said that based on the records it should have been 100% oxygen. The implication of Dr. Vertido’s admission is that there was no overdose of the anesthetic agent.
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 physician’s 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.
Here, the Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. It would consequently be truly difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the first three elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant.
We have to clarify that the acquittal of Dr. Solidum would not immediately exempt him from civil liability. But we cannot now find and declare him civilly liable because the circumstances that have been established here do not present the factual and legal bases for validly doing so. His acquittal did not derive only from reasonable doubt.
There was really no firm and competent showing how the injury to Gerard had been caused.
That meant that the manner of administration of the anesthesia by Dr. Solidum was not necessarily the cause of the hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerard. Consequently, to adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable would be to speculate on the cause of the hypoxia.
We are not allowed to do so, for civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence.
(b) On the Liability of Ospital ng Maynila:
In criminal prosecutions, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to that arising from the offense charged.
It is puzzling, therefore, how the RTC and the CA could have adjudged Ospital ng Maynila
jointly and severally liable with Dr. Solidum for the damages despite the obvious fact that Ospital ng Maynila, being an artificial entity, had not been charged along with Dr. Solidum.
Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Hence, its fundamental right to be heard was not respected from the outset. The RTC and the CA should have been alert to this fundamental defect. Verily, no person can be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a party. Such a rule would enforce the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.
Ospital ng Maynila could be held civilly liable only when subsidiary liability would be properly enforceable pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
But the subsidiary liability seems far-fetched here. The conditions for subsidiary liability to attach to Ospital ng Maynila should first be complied with.
Firstly, pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, Ospital ng Maynila must be shown to be a corporation “engaged in any kind of industry.” The term industry means any department or branch of art, occupation or business, especially one that employs labor and capital, and is engaged in industry.
However, Ospital ng Maynila, being a public hospital, was not engaged in industry conducted for profit but purely in charitable and humanitarian work.
Secondly, assuming that Ospital ng Maynila was engaged in industry for profit, Dr. Solidum must be shown to be an employee of Ospital ng Maynila acting in the discharge of his duties during the operation on Gerald.
Yet, he definitely was not such employee but a consultant of the hospital.
And, thirdly, assuming that civil liability was adjudged against Dr. Solidum as an employee (which did not happen here), the execution against him was unsatisfied due to his being insolvent.
✨✨✨
Recit VersionFacts:Gerald Albert Gercayo was born with an imperforate anus and underwent colostomy at two days old.
At age three, he was admitted to Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation and went into a coma due to bradycardia. After a month, he regained consciousness but could no longer see, hear, or move. His mother filed a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries against the attending physicians.
Dr. Solidum was found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries by failing to properly monitor and regulate anesthesia levels.
Assailed Decision:CA affirmed the conviction of Dr. Solidum by ruling res ipsa loquitor, because there is no other way, under usual and ordinary conditions, by which the patient can obtain redressfor injury suffered by him.Prior to the operation, the child was evaluated and found fit for the surgery, with no indication of any known ailment or disability that could pose a risk. The lower court concluded that the accident was due to a failure in the proper administration of anesthesia since no other reasonable explanation could be attributed to the incident.Issue:(a) WoN the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable herein; Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence.(b) WoN Ospital ng Maynila is civilly liable jointly and severally with Dr. Solidum.Contention:The defense was successful in proving that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and no overdosing of anesthesia administered to the child during the operation. The anesthesia machine regulated the application of the one percent halothane, contradicting the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in the case.Held:Granted.The prosecution was unable to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Dr. Solidum was negligent in administering anesthesia during Gerald's surgery, and therefore he was acquitted of criminal charges.
However, his acquittal does not exempt him from civil liability, but there was no evidence to support a civil liability claim.
The court also found that Ospital ng Maynila could not be held liable for civil damages as it was not charged in the criminal proceeding.
Ospital ng Maynila, being a public hospital, was not engaged in industry conducted for profit but rather in charitable and humanitarian work. Therefore, it cannot be held civilly liable for the damages suffered by Gerard. Even if it were engaged in industry for profit, Dr. Solidum was not an employee of the hospital acting in the discharge of his duties during the operation, but a consultant. Lastly, assuming civil liability was adjudged against Dr. Solidum as an employee, the execution against him would not be satisfied due to his insolvency.
Comments
Post a Comment