[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
630 views2 pages

Jarcia vs. People

Dr. Emmanuel Jarcia v People concerned a medical negligence case where Belinda Santiago accused Drs. Jarcia and Bastan of neglecting their professional duty which caused her son Roy Jr. to suffer physical injuries. The lower courts found the doctors guilty, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the doctors were criminally negligent or reckless. While their actions may have fallen below standards of care, the Court was not convinced the doctors' diagnosis and treatment aggravated Roy Jr.'s injuries with moral certainty.

Uploaded by

Royce Ann Pedemonte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
630 views2 pages

Jarcia vs. People

Dr. Emmanuel Jarcia v People concerned a medical negligence case where Belinda Santiago accused Drs. Jarcia and Bastan of neglecting their professional duty which caused her son Roy Jr. to suffer physical injuries. The lower courts found the doctors guilty, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the doctors were criminally negligent or reckless. While their actions may have fallen below standards of care, the Court was not convinced the doctors' diagnosis and treatment aggravated Roy Jr.'s injuries with moral certainty.

Uploaded by

Royce Ann Pedemonte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Dr.

Emmanuel Jarcia v People


GR No. 187926
February 15, 2012
I. Ticker
Culpa, Rep Isa Loquitor, Medical Negligence

II. Doctrine
Culpa – there is deceit when an act is performed without deliberate intent. Culpa is
also a Spanish term which means fault. There is fault when a wrongful act results
from negligence, imprudence, lack of skill or foresight. 

III. Facts
 Belinda Santiago lodged a complaint with (NBI) against the petitioners, Dr. 
Emanuel Jarcia and Dr. Marilou Bastan, for their alleged neglect of
professional duty which caused her son, Roy Alfonso Santiago, to suffer
physical injuries.  

 Upon investigation, the NBI found that Roy Jr.  was  hit  by  a  taxicab; 
that  he  was  rushed  to  the  Manila  Doctors Hospital for an emergency
medical treatment; that an X-ray of the victim’s ankle was ordered; that the
X-ray result showed no fracture as read by Dr. Jarcia; that Dr. Bastan
entered the emergency room and, after conducting her own examination
of the victim, informed Mrs.  Santiago  that  since  it  was  only  the  ankle 
that  was  hit  there  was  no  need  to  examine  the  upper  leg; 

 that  11  days  later,  Roy developed fever, swelling of the right leg and
misalignment of the right foot; that Mrs. Santiago brought him back to
the hospital; and that  the  x-ray  revealed  a  right  mid-tibial  fracture 
and  a  linear  hairline  fracture  in  the  shaft  of  the  bone.  

 A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting physical injuries was filed


against the petitioners for the alleged misconduct in the handling of the illness
of Roy. 

 RTC found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Simple Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries.

 CA affirmed the decision in toto (completely). 

IV. Issue:
whether or not the petitioners are liable for criminal negligence.
no

V. Decision:
The totality of the evidence on record clearly points to the negligence of the petitioners. At the
risk of being repetitious, the Court, however, is not satisfied that Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan are
criminally negligent in this case.

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another
person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.

Reckless imprudence 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.15

The elements of simple negligence are:


(1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender, and
(2) that the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest.16

In this case, the Court is not convinced with moral certainty that the petitioners are guilty of
reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The elements thereof were not proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

The testimony of Dr. Cirilo R. Tacata (Dr. Tacata), a specialist in pediatric orthopedic, although
pointing to some medical procedures that could have been done by Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan,
as physicians on duty, was not clear as to whether the injuries suffered by patient Roy Jr.
were indeed aggravated by the petitioners’ judgment call and their diagnosis or appreciation
of the condition of the victim at the time they assessed him.

You might also like