People Vs de Golez, Forensic Medicine

 

PEOPLE VS. VDA. DE GOLEZ

[No. L-14160. June 30, 1960] FACTS:

Sometime in 1957, De Golez was charged with the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence in an Information filed by the provincial fiscal of Negros Occidental in the Court of First Instance of said province. The allegations charge the accused of acting with reckless negligence in diagnosing, prescribing for, and treating the deceased Susana Tam without being duly licensed to practice medicine and knowing that she did not possess the necessary technical and scientific knowledge and skill to do so, thus resulting to the patient’s death. patient’s death. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Information. However, when the case was called for trial the assistant fiscal made a manifestation that the accused had also been charged with the crime of illegal practice of medicine before another sala of the same court. The court then motu proprio  dismissed the information for being fatally defective, without  prejudice to the filing of the proper Information against said accused. It reasoned out that the facts contained in the Information do not constitute the offense charged, since first, illegal practice of medicine is malicious  per se  and second, that the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence cannot be imputed to a person who has no authority to practice medical profession. Furthermore, Furthermore, it results from the  performance of a lawful act which was done without without exercising the care and diligence diligence that is required by the circumstances, and not as a result of an unlawful act as charged in the Information because a quack doctor who practices medicine does so against the law and so, his act is necessarily malicious and criminal. From this dismissal, the provincial fiscal through the Solicitor General appealed. ISSUES:

(1)  Whether or not the dismissal was proper (2)  Whether or not the appeal would prosper HELD:

(1)  NO.  The dismissal was erroneous. erroneous. The Information was valid valid and sufficient in form and in substance to sustain conviction for the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence since ordinary diligence would  prevent a person from tampering with human life by trying to treat and cure a sick individual, knowing that he does not have the required skill, knowledge, and competence to do so. Moreover, illegal practice of medicine is a statutory offense wherein criminal intent is immaterial. According to Section 2678 of the Revised Administrative Code which was the law then in force, the offense consists of the act of mere practicing medicine in violation of the Medical Law even if it causes no injury, much less death to another. However, if the patient dies, the accused will be equally responsible for such death, in an independent and distinct offense from the illegal practice of medicine. (2)  NO. The appeal would not prosper. Since the Information was found to be valid and sufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense charged, the dismissal of said court after the accused pleaded not guilty and without her consent is already a jeopardy which would bar further proceedings over the case. If the appeal would be sustained, it would necessarily constitute double jeopardy on the part of the accused. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed notwithstanding that the accused failed to submit a brief and raise such double  jeopardy in the appeal. appeal.