CARILLO vs.

PEOPLE

G.R. No. 86890 (January 21, 1994)

Petitioner Dr. Leandro Carillo, an anesthetist, was convicted by the RTC (affirmed by CA along with Dr.
Madrid) of the crime of simple negligence resulting in homicide, for the death of his thirteen-year-old
patient Catherine Acosta (operated on for appendectomy). Only Dr. Carillo filed this petition for reversa
of the CA decision.

In this case, the patient Catherine was ambulatory prior to the operation but was observed to be
shivering afterwards and with abnormal heartbeat. She was diagnosed as comatose and later died.

The CA held that Catherine suffered from an overdose of, or an adverse reaction to anesthesia,
particularly the arbitrary administration of an experimental drug Nubain (a pain killer), without prior
weighing. It ruled that this triggered off a heart attack as a post-operative complication, and that this is
the immediate cause of Catherine’s death. Petitioner, however, argues that the cause of death was a
ruptured appendix, which led to blood poisoing.

Issue: W/N Dr. Carillo is guilty of simple negligence resulting in homicide.

Ruling: Yes.

 Medical evidence presented at the trial was consistent with findings of the CA whch concluded
that an overdose of, of adverse reaction to Nubain, an anesthetic and pain-killing drug the
appropriate dose of which depends on the body weight or mass of the patient, had triggered off
cardiac arrest, which in turn led to lack of oxygen in Catherine’s brain, which then brought about
hemorrhaging in the brain. The order sheet did not contain the precaution against the drug;
prescription was made in Dr. Carillo’s handwriting but was unsigned, instruction was open-
ended in that some other individuals still had to determine if circumstances existed warranting
administration of the drug. Since he entered subsequent prescriptions on the same order sheet,
he was in a position to correct eh anomaly but he did not, this is an abdication of his duty to his
patient.
 While there was no proof to establish whether overdose of Nubain or ruptured appendix could
have exclusively caused the death, Court ruled that what is of critical importance is the set of
circumstances which the lower courts appreciated as constituting simple negligence of the
doctors.
- When patient was wheeled out of operating room, showed signs of instability (shivering,
irregular breathing, etc), was not brought to a properly-equipped recovery room. Worse, the
doctors left her, anf fifteen minutes later she suffered cardiac arrest.
- Inadequate care considering the patient’s condition, failed to monitor patient. Once
summoned, petitioner could not be readily found, and when he finally appeared was in bad
temperand evidently indisposed to attend to the patient, in violation of the canons of
 medical profession that as a physician, he should servce the interest of his patient ‘with the
greatest solicitude, giving them always his best talent and skill.’ It requires a physician to
‘attend to his patients faithfully and conscientiously.’
- No intensive preoperative preparations, i.e. administration of antibiotics, which s a standard
procedure for patients who are, after being diagnosed, suspected of suffering from a
perforated appendix and consequent peritonitis. Rupture of appendix happened during the
appendectomy procedure, that is, at a time and place where the two accused were in full
control of the situation and could determine decisively what needed to be done.This needs
to be considered in conjunction with other related circumstances, that she was ambulatory
when brought to the operating room, that she left the operating room in serious condition.
- Both doctors failed to inform the parents of the nature of her illness, and to explain the
dramatic deterioration of her condition after surgery. To give atruthful explanation was a
duty imposed by the canons of the medical profession.

The gravamen of the offense of simple negligence (Art. 365, RPC) is the failure to exercise the negligence
necessitated or called for the situation which was not immediately life-destructive but which
culminated, in the present case, in the death of a human being three days later. Such failure is a
negative ingredient of the offense which prosecution must prove to establish prima facie basis of guilt of
the accused. Thereafter, burden is shifted to accused to disprove or counter the proof of the negative
ingredient. 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. 50 In the instant case, the Court is bound to observe that the 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
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.

Wherefore, the decision of the CA is affirmed.

DR. BATIQUIN vs. CA

G.R. No. 118231 (July 5, 1996)

This case involves a simple caesarean section performed on Mrs. Villegas by Dr. Batiquin. After the
operation, Mrs. Flotilde Villegas complained of abdominal pains, being feverish and loss of appetite, to
which Dr. Batiquin prescribed medications. When the pains and the fever persisted, Mrs. Vilegas went to
see another doctor, Dr. Kho, who prescribed a second surgery. When her abdomen was opened, a
whitish-yellow discharge was found inside, an ovarian cyst on each of the left and right ovaries, and a
piece of rubber material embedded in the ovarian cyst, which looked like a rubber glove.
However, the piece of rubber was not presented in court, and was also not presented in the pathologist
report. Thus, the trial court regarded the documentary evidence mentioning the piece of rubber as mere
hearsay, also refused to give weight to her testimony (she ‘threw away’ the rubber). CA however
reversed, saying that Dr Kho’s positive testimony definitely established that a piece of rubber was found
near Mrs. Villegas’ uterus.

Issue: W/N the negligence of Dr. Batiquin has been established despite the non-presentation of the
piece of rubber found inside the body of the patient.

Ruling: Yes. (Court here gave weight to positive testimony of) Dr. Kho that she found a piece of rubber
near Mrs. Villegas’ uterus, against the mere denials/negative testimony of Dr. Batiquin, i.e. that no
rubber drain was used in the operation, nor any tear on Dr. Batiquin’s gloves. We-settled is the rule that
positive testimony is stronger than negative testimony. Also found Dr. Kho as a credible witness (was
frank throughout her testimony, no motive to state any untruth). Her positive testimony that a piece of
rubber was found prevails over the negative testimony in favor of the petitioners.

Court applied doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) which states that: “Where the
thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accient is
such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care”. The doctrine as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence. The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a
mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. It is not intended to and does not dispense with the
requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely determines and regulates
what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of
the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances
involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.

Here, all the requsites for recourse to the doctrine are present. First, the entire proceedings of the
caesarean section were under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin. Second, aside from the caesarean
section, Mrs. Villegas underwent no other operation which could have caused the offending piece of
rubber to appear in her uterus. The petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of negligence arising
from resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Dr. Batiquin is therefore liable for negligently leaving
behind a piece of rubber in private respondent Villegas’ abdomen and for all the adverse effects thereof.