L-160181

1J
The Verdict (1982)
1. Basis for Legal Opinion
I.

Facts and Contention:

a. Deborah Ann Kaye, a young woman, goes into the hospital to deliver her third child.
She complains of nausea before delivery. She was given an anaesthetic during the
delivery, after which she vomited into the oxygen mask which effectively blocked her
airways. She went into cardiac arrest, and it took several minutes to regain her
heartbeat but due to the deprivation of oxygen, she suffered brain damage which lead
to her comatose state.
b. The cause of contention stems from the fact that Sally Doneghy, the sister of the
victim claims that prior to admission, her sister had eaten one (1) hour before the
surgery. Admission form signed and certified by the admitting nurse, Kaitlin Price
nee Costello, state that she ate nine (9) hours prior.

II.

Basis for Case of Criminal Negligence through Reckless Imprudence:

a. Ms Doneghy is filing the case of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries due to medical malpractice[1] upon St. Catherines because Dr. Towler, the
Anaesthesiologist, was duty-bound to know all the pertinent information, i.e. time of
eating prior to surgery, before providing the anaesthetic which caused the vomiting,
that it was a breach of their professional duty to not administer the correct
anaesthetic. The injury is the consequential irreversible comatose state and brain
damage of Mrs Kaye, due to the inaction of Dr Towler.
b. Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure
of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and
skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar
conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances. In order to successfully pursue
such a claim, a patient must prove that the physician or surgeon either failed to do
something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done,
and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient. There are four elements
involved in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate
causation.[2]

2. Rebuttal Witness and Determination

A rebuttal witness is a witness called to rebut testimony already presented. [3]
The prosecution brought out a rebuttal witness, the admitting nurse, Kaitlin Price, to
refute the claims of Dr. Towler with a photocopy of the original admission which states that the
last meal taken was 1 hour before admission, contrary to the original which states 9 hours.
Witness also claims that she was coerced to change the original but not before she made a
photocopy.
The fact that Mrs. Price was brought to trial without precursory introduction at the Pretrial should make her statement and presence inadmissible to court, but as held in People vs.
Abalos,[5] the prosecution was entitled, however, as a matter of strict legal right, to introduce
positive evidence to this effect, instead of relying upon at mere inference from its evidence in
chief. In fact, it was to the interest of the trial court, in the discharge of its duty to find the truth,
to receive said rebuttal evidence for the prosecution. () Trial courts have ample discretion to
[4]

determine whether or not the parties should be allowed to introduce evidence in rebuttal. ()
Judicial discretion, however, is not unlimited. It must be exercised reasonably, with a view to
promoting the ends of justice, one of which is to ascertain the truth. Hence, whenever discretion
is vested, it must be understood to be a sound one, inasmuch as the interest of justice, equity and
fair play cannot be advanced otherwise. This is particularly with respect to rules of procedure,
especially those governing the admission or exclusion of evidence. As a matter of general
practice, it is deemed best to resolve doubts in favor of the admission of the contested evidence,
without prejudice to such action as the court may deem fit to take in deciding the case on the
merits, as they cited from Prats & Co. v. Phoenix Insurance Co.3,[6] as far back as February
21, 1929: There is greater reason to adhere to such policy in criminal cases where questions arise
as to admissibility of evidence for the prosecution, for the unjustified exclusion of evidence may
lead to the erroneous acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the charges, from which the
People can no longer appeal.
Although the witness presence may be admissible, the photocopy of the original
admissions form is inadmissible, as stated in Country Insurance Company vs. Lagman[7], under
the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced whenever its contents are the
subject of inquiry. The rule is encapsulated in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
continuing, a photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown
that the original is unavailable. Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that secondary
evidence may only be admissible when the original document is unavailable, lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court .[8] Since the original copy of the admissions form, which the
rebuttal witness herself had signed and authenticated, was tagged and numbered as evidence in
the pre-trial, and that only a photocopy is shown as evidence by the witness, the court cannot
allow said evidence to stand.
The testimony presented by the rebuttal witness, which was centered on the validity of
said document, and its subsequent inadmissibility must invalidate the testimony in itself. What
remains is the earlier statement of prosecutions expert witness, Dr. Thompson, which pointed to
the fact that within eight (8) to ten (10) minutes of lack of oxygen to the brain, irreversible brain
damage would happen, but said injury would not necessarily lead to negligence in the part of the
defendant. Dr. Thompsons testimony would stand. The defendant WOULD NOT BE FOUND
GUILTY of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries due to medical
malpractice.
_________________________________
[1] Article 365, Title 14, of the Revised Penal Code
[2] See Cayao-Lasam Vs Claro and Ramolete G.R. No. 159132, 43-45 (2008), citing Reyes v.
Sisters of Mercy Hospital, 396 Phil. 87, 95 (2000), citing 61 Am.Jur.2d 337, 205 on Physicians,
Surgeons,
[3] Internet - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rebuttal_witness
[4] Internet - http://www.lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
[5] G.R. No. L-29039,
[6] See note 5, supra, citing 52 Phil. 807, 816-817
[7] G.R. No. 165487
[8] See note 7, supra