Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-14160 June 30, 1960

and not fro% the perfor%ance of an unla+ful act +hich is the sub4ect of the infor%ation in this case because a 6uac, doctor +ho practices %edicine does so a$ainst the la+, and, therefore, his act is necessaril2 %alicious and cri%inal. &ro% the above order, the provincial fiscal appealed to this Court, and, throu$h the 3olicitor )eneral, ur$es that the court belo+ erred in dis%issin$ the infor%ation for bein$ fatall2 defective because the facts char$ed therein alle$edl2 do not constitute the cri%e of ho%icide thru rec,less i%prudence. 7e a$ree +ith appellant that the order of dis%issal is erroneous, in that the cri%e of ille$al practice of %edicine is a statutor2 offense +herein cri%inal intent is ta,en for $ranted, so that a person %a2 be convicted thereof irrespective of his intention and in spite of his havin$ acted in $ood faith and +ithout %alice< i.e., even if he +as not %otivated b2 an evil desire to in4ure or hurt another, but b2 an honest desire to cure or alleviate the pain of a patient. 'n fact, as defined b2 3ection 20#= of the Revised Ad%inistrative Code 8the la+ then in force9, the offense consists in the %ere act of practicin$ %edicine in violation of the Medical >a+, even if no in4ur2 to another, %uch less death, results fro% such %alpractice. 7hen, therefore, the patient dies, the ille$al practitioner should be e6uall2 responsible for the death of his patient, an offense independent of and distinct fro% the ille$al practice of %edicine. .he alle$ations in the infor%ation in this case that the accused acted +ith rec,less ne$li$ence in dia$nosin$, prescribin$ for, and treatin$ the deceased 3usana .a%, ,no+in$ that she did not possess the necessar2 technical ,no+led$e or s,ill to do so, thus causin$ her death, sufficientl2 char$e the cri%e of ho%icide throu$h rec,less i%prudence, since ordinar2 dili$ence counsels one not to ta%per +ith hu%an life b2 tr2in$ to treat a sic, %an +hen he ,no+s that he does not have the special s,ill, ,no+led$e, and co%petence to atte%pt such treat%ent and cure, and %a2 conse6uentl2 reasonabl2 foresee har% or in4ur2 to the latter, said accused +as found $uilt2 and convicted b2 this Court of ph2sical in4uries throu$h i%prudence under the old Penal Code 8?. 3. vs. &eliciano /ivino, 2 Phil., #"9. 5o+ever, in vie+ of the error of the lo+er court in dis%issin$ the infor%ation, +e cannot sustain this appeal for the reason that it +ould place the accused in double 4eopard2. .he present infor%ation bein$ valid and sufficient in for% and substance to sustain a conviction, the dis%issal thereof b2 the court after the accused had pleaded not $uilt2 to the char$e and +ithout his consent constitutes 4eopard2 as to bar further proceedin$s upon the case 8?. 3 vs. @a% .un$ 7a2, 2 Phil., 0#< People vs. 5ernande*, !1 Phil., 1!< 1! Off. )a*. No. 2, ":12< People vs. &errer, AA Phil., 21< "" Off. )a*. B1C 02A9. .he failure of the accused to file a brief and raise the 6uestion of double 4eopard2 in this appeal does not %ean that section 2, Rule =, providin$ that the People can not appeal if the defendant +ould be placed in double 4eopard2 +ould no lon$er appl2 8People vs. Bao, A0 Phil., 21:< "0 Off. )a*. B" C ##0=9. .he unfortunate result in this case could have been avoided if the trial court had proceeded %ore deliberatel2, +ithout allo+in$ its 4ud$%ent to be influenced b2 preconceived notions or undue haste in dispatchin$ cases. .he appeal is, therefore, dis%issed, +ith costs de oficio. aras! C. J.! "engzon! adilla! #ontema$or! "autista Angelo! %abrador! Concepcion! "arrera! and Gutierrez &avid! JJ.! concur.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANUNCIACION !A. !E GOLE", defendant-appellee. Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Jorge R. Coquia for appellant. Aniceto V. Zezobrado for appellee. RE#ES, J. $. L., J.% On October 2, !"#, the provincial fiscal of Ne$ros Occidental filed an infor%ation in the Court of &irst 'nstance of that province char$in$ Anunciacion (da. de )ole* +ith the cri%e of ho%icide throu$h rec,less i%prudence, as follo+s.hat on or about the period co%prised fro% /ece%ber 2, !"0 to /ece%ber 21, !"0, in the %unicipalit2 of 3an Carlos, province of Ne$ros Occidental, Philippines, and +ithin the 4urisdiction of this 5onorable Court, the herein accused, +ithout bein$ dul2 licensed to practice %edicine and +ith rec,less ne$li$ence and +ithout ta,in$ due precaution, did, then and there, +ilfull2, unla+full2, and feloniosl2 dia$nose, prescribe, and treat one 3usana .a%, +ho had been sufferin$ for so%eti%e +ith bodil2 ail%ent, ,no+in$ full2 +ell that she is inco%petent and not possessin$ the necessar2 technical or scientific ,no+led$e or s,ill, and as a conse6uence of such ne$li$ence and carelessness and lac, of %edical s,ill, said 3usana .a% died thereafter. .he accused pleaded not $uilt2 to the infor%ation. 7hen the case +as called for trial, the assistant fiscal %ade a %anifestation that the accused had also been char$ed +ith the cri%e of ille$al practice of %edicine before another sala of the sa%e court. 'n vie+ of this %anifestation, the trial court motu proprio dis%issed the infor%ation for bein$ fatall2 defective, +ithout pre4udice to the filin$ of the proper infor%ation a$ainst the sa%e accused. .he $rounds $iven for the dis%issal +ere the follo+in$'n vie+ of the fore$oin$ %anifestation of the &iscal, the Court finds that the infor%ation is fatall2 defective and, therefore, should be dis%issed under Par. 8a9, 3ec. 2 of Rule : of the Rules of Court inas%uch as the facts char$ed do not constitute the offense of ho%icide thru rec,less i%prudence because ille$al practice of %edicine is %alicious per se, and +hen the accused practiced %edicine +ithout acade%ical preparation and +ithout a license to do so, then she is per se co%%ittin$ a cri%inal act for +hich the cri%inal intent is presu%ed. Althou$h the cri%e of ho%icide thru rec,less i%prudence can be co%%itted b2 a dul2 licensed ph2sician +hen in the practice of his profession he fails to e;ercise due care and dili$ence fro% +hich the cri%inal act arises, this cri%e cannot be i%puted to a person +ho has no authorit2 to practice this profession, +hich act is %alicious per se. .he cri%e described in Article :0" of the Revised Penal Code results fro% the perfor%ance of a la+ful act +hich +as done +ithout e;ercisin$ the care and dili$ence that is re6uired b2 the circu%stances,