Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MENDOZA, J.:
Even early on, patients have consigned their lives to
the skill of their doctors. Time and again, it can be
said that the most important goal of the medical
profession is the preservation of life and health of the
people. Corollarily, when a physician departs from
his sacred duty and endangers instead the life of his
patient, he must be made liable for the resulting
injury. This Court, as this case would show, cannot
and will not let the act go unpunished.[1]
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court challenging the August 29, 2008
Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA), and its May
19, 2009 Resolution[3] in CA-G.R. CR No. 29559,
dismissing the appeal and affirming in toto the June
14, 2005 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 43, Manila (RTC), finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of simple imprudence
resulting to serious physical injuries.
THE FACT
Belinda Santiago (Mrs. Santiago) lodged a complaint
with the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) against the petitioners, Dr.
Emmanuel Jarcia, Jr. (Dr. Jarcia) and Dr. Marilou
Bastan (Dr. Bastan), for their alleged neglect of
professional duty which caused her son, Roy Alfonso
Santiago (Roy Jr.), to suffer serious 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 victims ankle was ordered; that
the X-ray result showed no fracture as read by Dr.
Jarcia; that Dr. Bastan entered the emergency
room(ER) 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 eleven (11) days later,
1.
that there is lack of precaution on the part of
the offender; and
LEGAL MEDICINE 2
of res ipsa loquitur is simply a recognition of the
postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and
experience, the very nature of certain types of
occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on
the part of the person who controls the instrumentality
causing the injury in the absence of some explanation
by the accused-appellant who is charged with
negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of
ordinary human experience and, on the basis of such
experience or common knowledge, negligence may be
deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident
itself. Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in
conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge.
The specific acts of negligence was narrated by Mrs.
Santiago who accompanied her son during the latters
ordeal at the hospital. She testified as follows:
Fiscal Formoso:
Q: Now, he is an intern did you not consult the
doctors, Dr. Jarcia or Dra. Pamittan to confirm
whether you should go home or not?
LEGAL MEDICINE 3
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but
it was denied by the CA in its May 19,
2009 Resolution. Hence, this petition.
The petitioners pray for the reversal of the decision of
both the RTC and the CA anchored on the following
GROUNDS1. IN AFFIRMING ACCUSED-PETITIONERS
CONVICTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
ACTUAL, DIRECT, IMMEDIATE, AND
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL
INJURY OF THE PATIENT (FRACTURE OF
THE LEG BONE OR TIBIA), WHICH
REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENDANCE FOR
MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AND
INCAPACITATED HIM FROM PERFORMING
HIS CUSTOMARY DUTY DURING THE SAME
PERIOD OF TIME, WAS THE VEHICULAR
ACCIDENT WHERE THE PATIENTS RIGHT
LEG WAS HIT BY A TAXI, NOT THE FAILURE
OF THE ACCUSED-PETITIONERS TO
SUBJECT THE PATIENTS WHOLE LEG TO AN
X-RAY EXAMINATION.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
DISREGARDING ESTABLISHED FACTS
CLEARLY NEGATING PETITIONERS
ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OR IMPRUDENCE.
SIGNIFICANTLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS
UNJUSTIFIABLY DISREGARDED THE
OPINION OF THE PROSECUTIONS EXPERT
WITNESS, DR. CIRILO TACATA, THAT
PETITIONERS WERE NOT GUILTY OF
NEGLIGENCE OR IMPRUDENCE
COMPLAINED OF.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE OF
PETITIONERS TO SUBJECT THE PATIENTS
WHOLE LEG TO AN X-RAY EXAMINATION
PROLONGED THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF
THE PATIENT, SUCH CONCLUSION BEING
UNSUPPORTED BY, AND EVEN CONTRARY
TO, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
4. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE
PATIENT EXPERIENCED PROLONGED PAIN
AND SUFFERING, THE COURT OF APPEALS
LEGAL MEDICINE 4
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.
Q: Will you please tell us, for the record, doctor, what
is your specialization?
A: At present I am the chairman department of
orthopedic in UP-PGH and I had special training in
pediatric orthopedic for two (2) years.
Q: In June 1998, doctor, what was your position and
what was your specialization at that time?
A: Since 1980, I have been specialist in pediatric
orthopedic.
Q: When Alfonso Santiago, Jr. was brought to you by
his mother, what did you do by way of physicians as
first step
A: As usual, I examined the patient physically and, at
that time as I have said, the patient could not walk so I
[began] to suspect that probably he sustained a
fracture as a result of a vehicular accident. So I
examined the patient at that time, the involved leg, I
dont know if that is left or right, the involved leg then
was swollen and the patient could not walk, so I
requested for the x-ray of [the] lower leg.
xxxx
A: At the emergency room, at the Manila Doctors
Hospital, the supervisor there is a consultant that
usually comes from a family medicine. They see
where a certain patient have to go and then if they
cannot manage it, they refer it to the consultant on
duty. Now at that time, I dont why they dont Because
at that time, I think, it is the decision. Since the x-rays
xxx
Q: You also said, Doctor, that Dr. Jarcia and Dra.
Bastan are not even an orthopedic specialist.
LEGAL MEDICINE 5
a criminal conviction requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is
required to establish civil liability. Taken into account
also was the fact that there was no bad faith on their
part.
As to the Award of
Damages
LEGAL MEDICINE 6
Immediate cause : a. Osteosarcoma, Status Post AKA
DECISION
LEGAL MEDICINE 7
for a serum calcium determination and stopped the
chemotherapy. When Angelica was given calcium
gluconate, the spasm and numbness subsided.[27]
The following day, August 23, petitioner yielded to
respondents request to take Angelica home. But prior
to discharging Angelica, petitioner requested for a
repeat serum calcium determination and explained to
respondents that the chemotherapy will be
temporarily stopped while she observes Angelicas
muscle twitching and serum calcium level. Takehome medicines were also prescribed for Angelica,
with instructions to respondents that the serum
calcium test will have to be repeated after seven days.
Petitioner told respondents that she will see Angelica
again after two weeks, but respondents can see her
anytime if any immediate problem arises.[28]
However, Angelica remained in confinement because
while still in the premises of SLMC, her convulsions
returned and she also had LBM. Angelica was given
oxygen and administration of calcium continued.[29]
LEGAL MEDICINE 8
because he felt that petitioner is a competent
oncologist. Considering that this type of cancer is
very aggressive and will metastasize early, it will
cause the demise of the patient should there be no
early intervention (in this case, the patient
developed sepsis which caused her death). Cancer
cells in the blood cannot be seen by the naked eye nor
detected through bone scan. On cross-examination,
Dr. Tamayo stated that of the more than 50 child
patients who had osteogenic sarcoma he had handled,
he thought that probably all of them died within six
months from amputation because he did not see them
anymore after follow-up; it is either they died or had
seen another doctor.[46]
In dismissing the complaint, the trial court held that
petitioner was not liable for damages as she observed
the best known procedures and employed her highest
skill and knowledge in the administration of
chemotherapy drugs on Angelica but despite all
efforts said patient died. It cited the testimony of Dr.
Tamayo who testified that he considered petitioner
one of the most proficient in the treatment of cancer
and that the patient in this case was afflicted with a
very aggressive type of cancer necessitating
chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment. Using the
standard of negligence laid down in Picart v. Smith,
[47]
the trial court declared that petitioner has taken the
necessary precaution against the adverse effect of
chemotherapy on the patient, adding that a wrong
decision is not by itself negligence. Respondents were
ordered to pay their unpaid hospital bill in the amount
of P139,064.43.[48]
Respondents appealed to the CA which,
while concurring with the trial courts finding that
there was no negligence committed by the petitioner
in the administration of chemotherapy treatment to
Angelica, found that petitioner as her attending
physician failed to fully explain to the respondents all
the known side effects of chemotherapy. The appellate
court stressed that since the respondents have been
told of only three side effects of chemotherapy, they
readily consented thereto. Had petitioner made known
to respondents those other side effects which gravely
affected their child -- such as carpo-pedal spasm,
sepsis, decrease in the blood platelet count, bleeding,
infections and eventual death -- respondents could
have decided differently or adopted a different course
of action which could have delayed or prevented the
early death of their child.
3.
4.
LEGAL MEDICINE 9
give expert opinion as to whether petitioners lack of
skill, knowledge and professional competence in
failing to observe the standard of care in her line of
practice was the proximate cause of the patients
death. Furthermore, respondents case was not at all
helped by the non-production of medical records by
the hospital (only the biopsy result and medical bills
were submitted to the court). Nevertheless, the CA
found petitioner liable for her failure to inform the
respondents on all possible side effects of
chemotherapy before securing their consent to the
said treatment.
LEGAL MEDICINE 10
important as medical breakthroughs move
practitioners to the cutting edge of technology, ever
encountering new and heretofore unimagined
treatments for currently incurable diseases or
ailments. An adaptable standard is needed to account
for this constant progression. Reasonableness
analyses permeate our legal system for the very
reason that they are determined by social norms,
expanding and contracting with the ebb and flow of
societal evolution.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the March 25, 2010
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 00020, which affirmed the August 26,
2004 Decision in Criminal Case No. CB-02-195 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37 in
Caibiran, Naval, Biliran.2 The RTC convicted accused
Jimmy Alverio (Alverio) of rape.
The Facts
The charge against Alverio stemmed from the
following Information:
That on or about the 3rd day of June, 2002, at about
2:00 oclock early dawn, more or less, at
[PPP],3 Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, while [AAA] was on her way to her
grandmothers house from the benefit dance, herein
accused, a cousin of herein complainant, with lewd
designs, and by means of force and intimidation, get
hold of her arm and did then and there drag her to the
back of the barangay hall, by holding her hair and
forcibly laid her to the ground, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously poked her a short bladed weapon
known as pisao forcibly took off her pants and panty
and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her
against her will to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.4
On July 3, 2003, Alverio, with the assistance of his
counsel de oficio, was arraigned, and he pleaded "not
guilty" to the charge against him. After the pre-trial,
trial on the merits ensued.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
LEGAL MEDICINE 11
MODIFICATION in that he is also hereby adjudged
liable to pay the victim the amount of Php50,000.00
as moral damages.
His penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of
civil indemnity of Php50,000.00 stands.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.25
The Issue
COURT:
A Yes sir.
A Yes sir.
Q When you were already undressed what happened,
can you tell this to the Honorable Court?
A He tried kissed [sic] me several times and I resisted
and I boxed him.
PROS. JOCOBO:
ATTY. SABANDAL:
A Yes sir.
Q And when Jimmy Alverio kissing you several times
were you already naked?
A Yes sir.
xxxx
Q What did Jimmy do more while he was kissing
several times and you were naked?
COURT INTERPRETER:
LEGAL MEDICINE 12
COURT:
SO ORDERED.
MENDOZA, J.:
A Yes sir.
A On the ground.
A a knife.
COURT:
Alright Pros. Joboco you can proceed the continuation A Yes sir.
of your direct examination.
Q By what means did he threatened you?
PROS. JOBOCO:
A He poke it at my side.
Q When you said when Jimmy Alverio was inserted
Q Now what would you mean, he poke it at my side,
his penis where was inserted?
what did you do?
A to my vagina.
A I remain there crying.33
Q And when Jimmy inserted his penis to your vagina
It is strikingly clear from the above transcript that
what did you feel?
AAAs testimony was very coherent and candid. Thus,
A I felt pain.
We find no reason to overturn the findings of the trial
court.
Q And when you felt pain what did you do?
In addition, Alverio submits that although the medical
A I kept on crying.
certificate was presented as evidence, its contents
were never testified to by the signatory himself and,
PROS. JOBOCO:
as such, cannot be considered as corroborative of the
claim of the victim that she was raped.
I think that would be all Your Honor I think the
witness already crying.
Such argument, however, cannot prosper. Medical
evidence is dispensable and merely corroborative in
COURT:
proving the crime of rape. Besides, a medical
certificate is not even necessary to prove the crime of
LEGAL MEDICINE 13
Antonio Espinoza, confessed to killing Jennifer
Domantay. He likewise disclosed that at around 3:30
that afternoon, he had given the fatal weapon used, a
bayonet, to Elsa and Jorge Casingal, his aunt and
uncle respectively, in Poblacion Sur, Bayambang,
Pangasinan. The next day, October 18, 1996, SPO1
Espinoza and another policeman took accusedappellant to Bayambang and recovered the bayonet
from a tricycle belonging to the Casingal spouses. The
police officers executed a receipt to evidence the
confiscation of the weapon.[3]
On the basis of the post-mortem findings of Dr.
Macaranas, SPO4 Juan Carpizo, the Philippine
National Police chief investigator at Malasiqui, filed,
on October 21, 1996, a criminal complaint for murder
against accused-appellant before the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Malasiqui. On October 25, 1996, Dr.
Ronald Bandonill, medico-legal expert of the NBI,
performed an autopsy on the embalmed body of
Jennifer. The result of his examination of the victims
genitalia indicated that the childs hymen had been
completely lacerated on the right side. Based on this
finding, SPO4 Carpizo amended the criminal
complaint against accused-appellant to rape with
homicide. Subsequently, the following information
was filed:[4]
That on or about the 17th day of October, 1996, in the
afternoon, in barangay Guilig, Municipality of
Malasiqui, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with lewd design and armed
with a bayonnete, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse
with Jennifer Domantay, a minor of 6 years old
against her will and consent, and on the same
occasion, the said accused with intent to kill, then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab with
the use of a bayonnete, the said Jennifer Domantay,
inflicting upon her multiple stab wounds, which
resulted to her death, to the damage and prejudice of
her heirs.
A Yes, sir.
Q How did you introduce yourself to the accused?
A I showed to Bernardino Domantay alias Junior Otot
my I.D. card and I presented myself as a media
practitioner with my tape recorder [in] my hand, sir.
Q What was his reaction to your request for an
interview?
A He was willing to state what had happened, sir.
Q What are those matters which you brought out in
that interview with the accused Bernardino Domantay
alias Junior Otot?
A I asked him what was his purpose for human
interests sake as a reporter, why did he commit that
alleged crime. And I asked also if he committed the
crime and he answered yes. Thats it.
....
PROS. QUINIT:
Q You mentioned about accused admitting to you on
the commi[ssion] of the crime, how did you ask him
that?
A I asked him very politely.
Q More or less what have you asked him on that
particular matter?
A I asked Junior Otot, Bernardino Domantay, Kung
pinagsisisihan mo ba ang iyong ginawa? Opo sabi
niya, Ibig mo bang sabihin Jun, ikaw ang pumatay
kay Jennifer?, Ako nga po. The [l]ast part of my
interview, Kung nakikinig ang mga magulang ni
Jennifer, ano ang gusto mong iparating?, kung gusto
nilang makamtan ang hustisya ay tatanggapin
ko. That is what he said, and I also asked Junior Otot,
what was his purpose, and he said, it was about the
boundary dispute, and he used that little girl in his
revenge.
On cross-examination, Manuel explained that the
interview was conducted in the jail, about two to three
meters away from the police station. An uncle of the
victim was with him and the nearest policemen
LEGAL MEDICINE 14
present were about two to three meters from him,
including those who were in the radio room.[18] There
was no lawyer present. Before interviewing accusedappellant, Manuel said he talked to the chief of police
and asked permission to interview accused-appellant.
[19]
On questioning by the court, Manuel said that it
was the first time he had been called to testify
regarding an interview he had conducted.[20] As in the
case of the testimony of SPO1 Espinoza, the defense
objected to the admission of Manuels testimony, but
the lower court allowed it.
Dr. Bandonill, the NBI medico-legal who conducted
an autopsy of the victim on October 25, 1996,
testified that Jennifer Domantay died as a result of the
numerous stab wounds she sustained on her back,
[21]
the average depth of which was six inches.[22] He
opined that the wounds were probably caused by a
pointed sharp-edged instrument.[23] He also noted
contusions on the forehead, neck, and breast bone of
the victim.[24] As for the results of the genital
examination of the victim, Dr. Bandonill said he
found that the laceration on the right side of the
hymen was caused within 24 hours of her death. He
added that the genital area showed signs of
inflammation.[25]
Pacifico Bulatao, the photographer who took the
pictures of the scene of the crime and of the victim
after the latters body was brought to her parents
house, identified and authenticated the five pictures
(Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E) offered by the
prosecution.
The defense then presented accused-appellant as its
lone witness. Accused-appellant denied the
allegations against him. He testified he is an uncle of
Jennifer Domantay (he and her grandfather are
cousins) and that he worked as a janitor at the
Malasiqui Municipal Hall. He said that at around 1
oclock in the afternoon of October 17, 1996, he was
bathing his pigs outside the house of his brother-inlaw Daudencio Macasaeb in Guilig, Malasiqui,
Pangasinan. He confirmed that Daudencio was then
having drinks in front of his (Macasaebs) house.
Accused-appellant claimed, however, that he did not
join in the drinking and that it was Edward Domantay,
whom the prosecution had presented as witness, and a
certain Jaime Caballero who joined the party. He also
claimed that it was he whom Macasaeb had requested
to buy some more liquor, for which reason he gave
LEGAL MEDICINE 15
We agree with the Solicitor General, however, that
accused-appellants confession to the radio reporter,
Celso Manuel, is admissible. In People v. Andan,
[40]
the accused in a rape with homicide case confessed
to the crime during interviews with the media. In
holding the confession admissible, despite the fact
that the accused gave his answers without the
assistance of counsel, this Court said:[41]
[A]ppellants [oral] confessions to the newsmen are
not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of
the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not concern
itself with the relation between a private individual
and another individual. It governs the relationship
between the individual and the State. The prohibitions
therein are primarily addressed to the State and its
agents.
Accused-appellant claims, however, that the
atmosphere in the jail when he was interviewed was
tense and intimidating and was similar to that which
prevails in a custodial investigation.[42]We are not
persuaded. Accused-appellant was interviewed while
he was inside his cell. The interviewer stayed outside
the cell and the only person besides him was an uncle
of the victim.Accused-appellant could have refused to
be interviewed, but instead, he agreed. He answered
questions freely and spontaneously. According to
Celso Manuel, he said he was willing to accept the
consequences of his act.
Celso Manuel admitted that there were indeed some
police officers around because about two to
three meters from the jail were the police station and
the radio room.[43] We do not think the presence of the
police officers exerted any undue pressure or
influence on accused-appellant and coerced him
into giving his confession.
Accused-appellant contends that it is . . . not
altogether improbable for the police investigators to
ask the police reporter (Manuel) to try to elicit some
incriminating information from the accused.[44] This is
pure conjecture. Although he testified that he had
interviewed inmates before, there is no evidence to
show that Celso was a police beat reporter. Even
assuming that he was, it has not been shown that, in
conducting the interview in question, his purpose was
to elicit incriminating information from accusedappellant. To the contrary, the media are known to
LEGAL MEDICINE 16
Dr. Ronald Bandonills report on the genital
examination he had performed on the deceased reads:
[54]
....
....
ATTY. VALDEZ:
LEGAL MEDICINE 17
crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the
homicide must be established beyond reasonable
doubt.[73]
Third. The trial court ordered accused-appellant to
pay the heirs of Jennifer Domantay the amount
of P30,000.00 as actual damages. However, the list of
expenses produced by the victims father, Jaime
Domantay, only totaled P28,430.00. Of this amount,
only P12,000.00 was supported by a receipt. Art. 2199
of the Civil Code provides that a party may recover
actual or compensatory damages only for such loss as
he has duly proved. Therefore, the award of actual
damages should be reduced to P12,000.00.
I
THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.
II
THERE ARE SERIOUS ERRORS IN THE
FINDINGS OF FACTS WHICH WOULD CAUSE
GRAVE OR IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OR
INJURY TO HEREIN COMPLAINANT.[7]
On November 29, 2001, the NLRC issued a
Resolution reversing the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. The dispositive portion of the resolution
reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated October
19, 2000 is SET ASIDE and
REVERSED. Accordingly, the respondent-appellee is
hereby ordered to immediately reinstate complainant
to his former position without loss of seniority rights
and other benefits and payment of his full backwages
from the time of his actual dismissal up to the time of
his reinstatement.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.[8]
The NLRC upheld the claim of the respondent that his
successive absences due to severe toothache was
known to management. It ruled that the medical
certificates issued by the doctor and dentist who
attended to the respondent substantiated the latters
medical problem. It also declared that the lack of
notarization of the said certificates was not a valid
justification for their rejection as evidence. The
NLRC declared that the respondents absence for ten
(10) consecutive days could not be classified as gross
and habitual neglect of duty under Article 282 of the
Labor Code.
The NLRC resolved to deny the motion for
reconsideration of the petitioner, per its
Resolution[9] dated August 26, 2002.
The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 73602. It raised the
following issues:
LEGAL MEDICINE 18
Whether or not the public respondent gravely abused
it[s] discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in reversing the decision of the labor
arbiter a quo and finding that private respondent
Alejandro A. Etis was illegally dismissed.
Whether or not public respondent gravely abused its
discretion in reinstating private respondent Alejandro
A. Etis to his former position without loss of seniority
rights and awarding him full backwages.[10]
LEGAL MEDICINE 19
certificates presented by complainant are genuine and
authentic. Indeed, the physician and the dentist who
examined the complainant, aside from their respective
letterheads, had written their respective license
numbers below their names and signatures. These
facts have not been impugned nor rebutted by
respondent-appellee throughout the proceedings of his
case.Common sense dictates that an ordinary worker
does not need to have these medical certificates to be
notarized for proper presentation to his company to
prove his ailment; hence, the Labor Arbiter a quo, in
cognizance with the liberality and the appreciation on
the rules on evidence, must not negate the acceptance
of these medical certificates as valid pieces of
evidence.
We believe, as we ought to hold, that the medical
certificates can prove clearly and convincingly the
complainants allegation that he consulted a physician
because of tooth inflammation onSeptember 23,
1997 and a dentist who later advised him to rest and,
thus, clinically extended his tooth extraction due to
severe pain and inflammation. Admittingly, it was
only on October 4, 1997 that complainants tooth was
finally extracted.
BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA SIOSON,On February 18, 2000, private respondents husband,
Respondents.
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
Decision[1] dated September 22, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 87755. The CA
dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner
Rico Rommel Atienza (Atienza), which, in turn,
LEGAL MEDICINE 20
handwritten entries which are the interpretation of the
results of the ultrasound examination. Incidentally,
this exhibit happens to be the same as or identical to
the certified photocopy of the document marked as
Annex 2 to the Counter-Affidavit dated March 15,
2000, filed by x x x Dr. Pedro Lantin, III, on May 4,
2000, with this Honorable Board in answer to this
complaint;
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUE:
WHETHER PETITIONER ATIENZA AVAILED OF
THE PROPER REMEDY WHEN HE FILED THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DATED 06
DECEMBER 2004 WITH THE COURT OF
APPEALS UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF
COURT TO ASSAIL THE ORDERS DATED 26
MAY 2004 AND 08 OCTOBER 2004 OF
RESPONDENT BOARD.
LEGAL MEDICINE 21
admission of evidence which do not prejudice the
substantive rights of either party shall not vitiate the
proceedings.[10]
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
RES OLUTIO N
PUNO, J.:
LEGAL MEDICINE 22
above-entitled cases which could have altered the
judgment of the Sandiganbayan, specifically:
A) Independent forensic evidence uncovering the
false forensic claims that led to the unjust conviction
of the petitioners-movants.
B) A key defense eyewitness to the actual killing of
Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.
II
There was a grave violation of due process by reason
of:
A) Insufficient legal assistance of counsel;
B) Deprivation of right to counsel of choice;
C) Testimonies of defense witnesses were under
duress;
D) Willful suppression of evidence;
E) Use of false forensic evidence that led to the unjust
conviction of the petitioners-movants.
III
There was serious misapprehension of facts on the
part of the Sandiganbayan based on false forensic
evidence, which entitles petitioners-movants to a retrial.[6]
Petitioners seek to present as new evidence the
findings of the forensic group composed of Prof.
Jerome B. Bailen, a forensic anthropologist from the
University of the Philippines, Atty. Erwin P. Erfe,
M.D., a medico-legal practitioner, Benito E. Molino,
M.D., a forensic consultant and Human Rights and
Peace Advocate, and Anastacio N. Rosete, Jr.,
D.M.D., a forensic dentistry consultant. Their report
essentially concludes that it was not possible, based
on the forensic study of the evidence in the double
murder case, that C1C Rogelio Moreno fired at
Senator Aquino as they descended the service
stairway from the aircraft. They posit that Senator
Aquino was shot while he was walking on the airport
tarmac toward the waiting AVSECOM van which was
supposed to transport him from the airport to Fort
Bonifacio. This is contrary to the finding of the
LEGAL MEDICINE 23
These standards, also known as the Berry rule, trace
their origin to the 1851 case of Berry vs. State of
Georgia[13] where the Supreme Court of Georgia held:
LEGAL MEDICINE 24
the petrous bone deflected the trajectory of the bullet
and, thus, the bullet proceeded downwards from the
petrous bone to the mandible.
Finding of a downward
trajectory of the
Observations:
to the credibility
of defense witnesses.
LEGAL MEDICINE 25
The Sandiganbayan again exhaustively analyzed and
discussed the forensic evidence in its resolution dated
November 15, 1990 denying the motion for
reconsideration filed by the convicted accused. The
court held:
The Autopsy Report No. N-83-2236, Exhibit NNNN2-t-2 indicated a downward trajectory of the fatal
bullet when it stated that the fatal bullet was forward,
downward, and medially . . .
xxx
xxx
These physical facts, notwithstanding the arguments
and protestations of counsel for the defense as now
and heretofore avowed, compel the Court to maintain
the holding: (1) that the trajectory of the fatal bullet
which hit and killed Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. was
forward, downward and medially; (2) that the Senator
was shot by a person who stood at a higher elevation
than he; and (3) that the Senator was shot and killed
by CIC Rogelio Moreno on the bridge stairs and not
on the tarmac, in conspiracy with the rest of the
accused convicted herein.[21]
II
The wound of entrance having been at a higher
elevation than the wound of exit, there can be no other
conclusion but that the trajectory was downward. The
fatal bullet, whether it be a Smith and Wesson
Caliber .357 magnum revolver or a .45 caliber, must
have traveled at a fast rate of speed and it stands to
reason that it took a straight path from the wound of
entrance to the wound of exit. A hole indicating this
straight path was proven to have existed. If, as
contended on cross-examination by Dr. Bienvenido
Muoz, that the bullet was projected upwards, it ought
to have exited at the roof of the head. The theory that
the fatal bullet was deflected by a mere petrous bone
is inconceivable.
III
Since the wound of entrance appeared ovaloid and
there is what is known as a contusion collar which
was widest at the superior portion, indicating an acute
angle of approach, a downward trajectory of the fatal
bullet is conclusively indicated. This phenomenon
indicates that the muzzle of the fatal gun was at a
level higher than that of the point of entry of the fatal
bullet.
IV
There was no hole from the petrous bone to the
mandible where the fatal bullet had exited and, thus,
there is no support to the theory of Dr. Bienvenido
Muoz that the fatal bullet had hit the petrous bone on
an upward trajectory and had been deflected by the
petrous bone towards the mandible. Dr. Juanito
Billotes testimony in this regard had amplified the
matter with clarity.
LEGAL MEDICINE 26
SO ORDERED.