(001) Carillo v. People - G.R. No. 86890 - January 21, 1994 - DIGEST
Leg Med Case...
Leandro Carillo v. People G.R. No. 86890 January 21, 1994 FELICIANO, J.: STATEMENTS OF FACTS: Catherine Acosta (Catherine), (Catherine) , a 13yr old girl suffered stomach pains. The girl complained to her parents, and the parents in turn informed their family doctor, Dr. Elva Pena (Pena). (Pena). Dr. Pena called for Dr. Emilio Madrid (Madrid) which (Madrid) which diagnosed the same to be appendicitis, thus told the parents of Catherine to bring her to the hospital in Baclaran. In the hospital, the nurse administered a blood test and decided that no further tests were needed as Catherine was looking healthy. After being late for 45 minutes from the scheduled time for operation, Dr. Madrid directly brought Cathe rine to the operating room. Dr . Madrid was assisted (Carillo) the anesthesiologist. Dr. Carillo did not perform any weight test to by Dr. Leandro Carillo (Carillo) the determine the safe amount of anesthesia (Nubain) to (Nubain) to be used on Catherine. After the operation complications arose where Catherine was pale, shivering, had irregular breathing and a weak heartbeat.. Her parents inquired about the situation with the nurses and the doctors, not appreciating the severity of the situation, merely suggested to use an oxygen tank. Catherine then had a heart hear t attack and convulsions and she was diagnosed to have been infected in the head due to the lesion. During this time Dr. Carillo left the hospital, and when he returned he saw Catherine on two dextrose and made a remark: What is this? Christmas tree or what? , and told the 1 bottle to be removed. Her parents questioned if she was going to be alright to which Dr. Carillo said that it is nothing, the child will regain consciousness and if the child will not regain Catherine was then unconscious and remained to be so consciousness, I will resign as a doctor. Catherine until the next day where she was declared to be comatose by the neurologist who examined her. After 3 days she died without regaining reg aining consciousness. “
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Yolanda Acosta (Yolanda), Catherine s mother, filed a complaint against Dr. Carillo and Dr. Madrid before the RTC of Paranaque. The RTC convicted Dr. Carillo of the crime of simple negligence resulting in homicide. The CA affirmed the judgment of conviction, Dr. Carillo did not appeal the decision of the CA and thus became final. Dr. Carillo then filed a petition to question the factual soundness of the CA before the SC. ’
ISSUE: 1. Whether Dr. Carillo and Dr. Madrid acted negligently in their duties which resulted to the death of their patient. RULLING: YES, both doctors acted negligently in providing the proper care to their patient, during and post operation. The Court defined simple negligence, penalized under what is now Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as "a mere lack of prevision prevision in a situation where either
the threatened harm is not immediate or the danger not openly visible." visible." The rule in such cases is that while the prosecution must prove the negative ingredient of the offense, it needs only to present the best evidence procurable under the circumstances, in order to shift the burden of disproving or countering the proof of the negative ingredient to the accused, provided that such initial evidence establishes at least on a prima a prima facie basis the guilt of the accused. This rule is particularly applicable where the negative ingredient of the offense is of such a nature or character as, under the circumstances, to be specially within the knowledge or control of the accused. In the t he instant case, the Court is bound to observe that t he events which occurred during the surgical procedure (including whether or not Nubain had in fact been administered as an anesthesia immediately before or during the surgery) were peculiarly within the knowledge and control of Dr. Carillo and Dr. Madrid. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the two (2) accused to overturn the prima the prima facie case facie case which the prosecution had established, by reciting the measures which they had actually taken to prevent or to counter the obviously serious condition of Catherine Acosta which was evident right after surgery. This they failed or refused to do so. NOTES: The following negligent acts were found: Dr. Madrid did not take intensive preoperative preparations, like the immediate administration of antibiotics which is a standard procedure for those who have been diagnosed, and suspected to have their appendix ruptured. Dr. Carillo being late (45mins) for the surgery which would increase the morbidity of the patient. Dr. Carillo failing to weigh the patient to know the safe dosage of the anesthesia considering that there has been no experience to the administration thereof to a patient less than 18 years of age. age . Dr. Madrid and Dr. Carillo not submitting Catherine to intensive care when it was apparent that Catherine was pale, shivering, had irregular breathing and a weak heartbeat post operation. Failure of both doctors to inform the parents of Catherine the severity of the situation or the nature of the sickness that their daughter is experiencing.