Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Garcia Rueda Vs Pascasio - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    581 views1 page
    1) Florencio Rueda underwent surgery at UST hospital and died 6 hours later from complications of unknown cause. His wife requested an autopsy by NBI, which found his death was due to lack of care by the attending physician and anesthesiologist in administering anesthesia. 2) The Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the City Prosecutor for lack of evidence, as probable cause requires only belief that an offense was committed, not sufficient evidence for conviction. 3) There was no finding of medical negligence by the attending physician and anesthesiologist. Determining negligence requires extensive investigation and evaluation by medical experts, which the City Prosecutors

    Original Description:

    legal medicine

    Original Title

    5. Garcia Rueda vs Pascasio.digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Florencio Rueda underwent surgery at UST hospital and died 6 hours later from complications of unknown cause. His wife requested an autopsy by NBI, which found his death was due to lack of care by the attending physician and anesthesiologist in administering anesthesia. 2) The Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the City Prosecutor for lack of evidence, as probable cause requires only belief that an offense was committed, not sufficient evidence for conviction. 3) There was no finding of medical negligence by the attending physician and anesthesiologist. Determining negligence requires extensive investigation and evaluation by medical experts, which the City Prosecutors

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    581 views1 page

    Garcia Rueda Vs Pascasio - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    1) Florencio Rueda underwent surgery at UST hospital and died 6 hours later from complications of unknown cause. His wife requested an autopsy by NBI, which found his death was due to lack of care by the attending physician and anesthesiologist in administering anesthesia. 2) The Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the City Prosecutor for lack of evidence, as probable cause requires only belief that an offense was committed, not sufficient evidence for conviction. 3) There was no finding of medical negligence by the attending physician and anesthesiologist. Determining negligence requires extensive investigation and evaluation by medical experts, which the City Prosecutors

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 118141. September 5, 1997]


    LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA, petitioner, vs. WILFREDO L. PASCASIO, RAUL R. ARNAU, ABELARDO L. APORTADERA
    JR., Honorable CONDRADO M. VASQUEZ, all of the Office of the Ombudsman; JESUS F. GUERRERO,
    PORFIRIO MACARAEG, and GREGORIO A. ARIZALA, all of the Office of the City Prosecutor,
    Manila, respondents.
    DECISION
    ROMERO, J.:

    FACTS: Florencio V. Rueda, husband of petitioner Leonila Garcia-Rueda, underwent surgical operation at the
    UST hospital for the removal of a stone blocking his ureter. He was attended by Dr. Domingo Antonio, Jr. who was the
    surgeon, while Dr. Erlinda Balatbat-Reyes was the anaesthesiologist. Six hours after the surgery, however, Florencio died of
    complications of unknown cause, according to officials of the UST Hospital.[2]
    Not satisfied with the findings of the hospital, petitioner requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct
    an autopsy on her husbands body. Consequently, the NBI ruled that Florencios death was due to lack of care by the
    attending physician in administering anaesthesia. Pursuant to its findings, the NBI recommended that Dr. Domingo Antonio
    and Dr. Erlinda Balatbat-Reyes be charged for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence before the Office of the City
    Prosecutor.

    ISSUE: WON the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the City
    prosecutor on the ground of lack of evidence?
    No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the City prosecutor
    on the ground of lack of evidence.
    In this regard, grave abuse of discretion has been defined as where a power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
    manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual
    refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law. [7]
    While it is true that a preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and is often the only means to discover who
    may be charged with a crime, its function is merely to determine the existence of probable cause. [8] Probable cause has
    been defined as the existence of such fact and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the
    facts within the knowledge of the prosecution, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
    prosecuted.[9]
    Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded, such a state of facts
    in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or
    strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute
    certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry
    into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
    complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in
    support of the charge.[10]

    ISSUE:WON the attending Physician & anesthesiologist committed medical practice or negligence?
    NO, the attending Physician & anesthesiologist did not commit medical practice or negligence

    There are four elements involved in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate causation.
    Evidently, when the victim employed the services of Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes, a physician-patient relationship was
    created. In accepting the case, Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes in effect represented that, having the needed training and skill
    possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, they will employ such training, care and skill in the
    treatment of their patients.[13] They have a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent
    doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. The breach of these professional duties of skill and
    care, or their improper performance, by a physician surgeon whereby the patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes
    actionable malpractice.[14] Consequently, in the event that any injury results to the patient from want of due care or skill
    during the operation, the surgeons may be held answerable in damages for negligence. [15]

    In the instant case, no less than the NBI pronounced after conducting an autopsy that there was indeed negligence on
    the part of the attending physicians in administering the anaesthesia. [11] The fact of want of competence or diligence is
    evidentiary in nature, the veracity of which can best be passed upon after a full-blown trial for it is virtually impossible to
    ascertain the merits of a medical negligence case without extensive investigation, research, evaluation and consultations
    with medical experts. Clearly, the City Prosecutors are not in a competent position to pass judgment on such a technical
    matter, especially when there are conflicting evidence and findings. The bases of a partys accusation and defenses are
    better ventilated at the trial proper than at the preliminary investigation.

    Another element in medical negligence cases is causation which is divided into two inquiries: whether the doctors
    actions in fact caused the harm to the patient and whether these were the proximate cause of the patients injury. [18]

    Moreover, in malpractice or negligence cases involving the administration of anaesthesia, the necessity of expert
    testimony and the availability of the charge of res ipsa loquitur to the plaintiff, have been applied in actions against
    anaesthesiologists to hold the defendant liable for the death or injury of a patient under excessive or improper
    anaesthesia.[16] Essentially, it requires two-pronged evidence: evidence as to the recognized standards of the medical
    community in the particular kind of case, and a showing that the physician in question negligently departed from this
    standard in his treatment.[17]

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED

    You might also like