SOLIDUM v.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
CPT 30 JURISPRUDENCE
 FACTS:
On June 2, 1992, Gerald Albert Gercayo (Gerald) was born with an imperforate anus.
Hence, two days after his birth, he underwent colostomy which enabled him to excrete
through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body.

Three years later or on May 17, 1995, he was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-
through operation. The surgical team consisted of Dr. Resurreccion, Dr. Luceo, Dr. Valea,
and Dr. Tibio. The anesthesiologists included Dr. Abella, Dr. Razon and herein Petitioner
Dr. Solidum. It was during the said operation that Gerald experienced bradycardia or an
abnormally slow heart rate of less than 60 beats per minute. He subsequently went into a
coma which lasted for two weeks. When he regained consciousness after a month, he
could no longer see, hear, or move. Ma. Luz Gercayo (Luz) lodged a complaint for reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries against the attending physicians.

The RTC found Dr. Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence
resulting to serious physical injuries. The CA affirmed the conviction of Dr. Solidum.
 FACTS:
The RTC found Dr. Solidum guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence
resulting to serious physical injuries. The CA
affirmed the conviction of Dr. Solidum.
 ISSUES
-Whether or not the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur applies in this case?
-Whether the CA correctly affirmed
the conviction of Dr. Solidum for
criminal negligence?
 RULING OF THE SC
TORTS: Applicability of the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The Court held that the application the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the case at bar is
inappropriate. Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as the thing or the transaction speaks for
itself. Jarcia, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 187926 laid down that, here the thing which causes injury is
shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident 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 an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose
from want of care. Hence, the requisites for the doctrine to apply are as follows: (1) the accident
was of the kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality
or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and (3)
the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person
injured. (THERE MUST BE NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE PARTY INJURED.)

Elements 2 and 3 were present in the case at bar. However, the first element was undeniably
wanting.
 RULING OF THE SC
TORTS: elements of medical negligence

The Prosecution failed to prove the existence of the

elements of reckless imprudence beyond reasonable
doubt. Gaid v. People, G.R. No. 171636 defined
negligence as the failure to observe for the protection
of the interests of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.
 Ruling, continued…
The following are the elements of medical negligence:
(1) the duty owed by the physician to the patient, as
created by the physician-patient relationship, to act in
accordance with the specific norms or standards
established by his profession;
(2) the breach of the duty by the physician failing to act
in accordance with the applicable standard of care;
(3) the causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably close
and causal connection between the negligent act or
omission and the resulting injury; and
(4) the damages suffered by the patient.
 Ruling, continued…
Most medical malpractice cases are highly
technical, therefore, witnesses with special
medical qualifications must impart the
knowledge necessary to render a fair and
just verdict. In the case at bar, there were no
witnesses with special medical qualifications
in anesthesia presented. Hence, it is difficult
to assess whether the first three elements
of medical negligence were present.