Solidum vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 192123 March 10, 2014

Facts:
Gerald Albert Gercayo was born on June 2, 1992 with an imperforate anus. Two
days after his birth, Gerald under went colostomy, a surgical procedure to bring
one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal walls, enabling him to
excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body. On May 17,
1995, Gerald was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation.
Dr. Leandro Resurreccion headed the surgical team, and was assisted by Dr.
Joselito Lucerio, Dr. Donatella Valeria and Dr. Joseph Tibio. The anesthesiologist
included Drs. Abella, Razon and Solidum. During the operation, Gerald
experienced bradycardia and went into a coma. His coma lasted for two weeks ,
but he regained consciousness after a month. He could no longer see, hear, or
move. A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries
were filed by Geralds parents against the team of doctors alleging that there was
failure in monitoring the anesthesia administered to Gerald.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case?
2. Whether the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of Dr. Solidum for criminal
negligence?

Held:
1. No. Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as the thing or the transaction speaks
for itself. 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. Elements 2 and 3 were
present in the case at bar. However, the first element was undeniably wanting.

2.The Prosecution failed to prove the existence of the elements of reckless

imprudence beyond reasonable doubt. 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;
and (4) the damages suffered by the patient.

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.