GR 187926; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187926; February 15, 2012
Dr. Emmanuel Jarcia, Jr. and Dr. Marilou Bastan, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, Dr. Emmanuel Jarcia, Jr. and Dr. Marilou Bastan, were physicians at Manila Doctors Hospital who attended to Roy Alfonso Santiago, Jr., a victim of a vehicular accident. Dr. Jarcia, an orthopedic surgeon, read the initial ankle X-ray and found no fracture. Dr. Bastan, the emergency room physician, examined the patient and informed his mother that since the impact was on the ankle, there was no need to examine the upper leg. Roy Jr. was discharged but returned eleven days later with fever, leg swelling, and foot misalignment. A subsequent X-ray revealed a right mid-tibial fracture. The National Bureau of Investigation investigated, and a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries was filed. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioners of the lesser crime of simple imprudence, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are criminally liable for simple imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted the petitioners of criminal liability. The Court clarified that for criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code to exist, the negligence must be gross or reckless, characterized by a want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act with conscious indifference to consequences. The standard in medical negligence cases requires a breach of the duty of care measured against the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances. The prosecution failed to prove this degree of culpability. The Court found that the doctors exercised the standard of care: Dr. Jarcia properly read the initial X-ray, and a tibial fracture was not immediately apparent or a common complication from the described injury. Dr. Bastan’s examination and advice were within accepted emergency room protocol. The subsequent discovery of the fracture was an unforeseen complication, not a direct result of gross negligence. However, while criminal liability was not established, the Court upheld civil liability based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, finding a preponderance of evidence for breach of due care which caused the patient’s worsened condition. The petitioners were ordered to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages.