G.R. No. 152044.

July 3, 2003

DOMINGO LAGROSA and OSIAS BAGUIN vs. THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

Decision on : PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE DECISION OF

THE COURT OF APPEALS RE CA-GR NOS
67308 and THE DENIED MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Original Case : APPLICATION FOR PROBATION

FACTS:
Petitioners were convicted for violation of the Revised Forestry Code
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment with minimum periods of prision
correccional to maximum of prision mayor. Raised in the Court of
Appeals, decision was affirmed although modified by reducing the
sentence to indeterminate penalty ranging from prision correccional,
minimum to its maximum period. Said decision became final and
executory.
Petitioners after conviction, applied for probation but was denied both
by the lower court and Court of Appeals so as the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the same.

ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICATION FOR PROBATION
WAS MERITORIOUS?
2. WHETHER OR NOT BOTH COURTs ERRED IN THEIR
DECISION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR
PROBATION APPLIED BY BOTH PETITIONERS?

SC RULINGS:

1. PD 968 as amended by PD 1990 allows application for

probation in a conviction on appeal only if the accused has
not served his sentence yet. When petitioners perfected their
appeal, ipso facto they relinquished alternative remedy for
probation. The contention of the petitioners that their right to
apply for probation only accrued by the time Court of
Appeals released its’ decision is deemed without merit. They
could have applied for probation solely, but having to raise
appeal to prove their innocence precluded them to avail such
privilege.

2. Petitioners failed to establish that the appeal they made in

their conviction was due to erroneous penalty imposed by
the court. An accused, who although already eligible does
not at once apply for probation but did so after his appeal on
his conviction failed clearly denotes intent to make the
probation as an escape. Both courts issued sound decision
for denying their application .

Petition for Review of :

a) CA’s decision
b) Petition for Reconsideration as denied
Are all affirmed.
 of prision correccional, a clearly probationable penalty.  Probation was
COLINARES vs PEOPLE his to ask!  Still, he chose to appeal, seeking an acquittal, hence clearly
waiving his right to apply for probation.  When the acquittal did not
FACTS: come, he wanted probation.  The Court would not of course let him.  It
Arnel Colinares was found guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced served him right that he wanted to save his cake and eat it too.  He
him to suffer imprisonment from two years and four months of certainly could not have both appeal and probation.
prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day
of prision mayor, as maximum.  Since the maximum probationable The Probation Law, said the Court in  Francisco, requires that
imprisonment under the law was only up to six years, Arnel did not an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail
qualify for probation. himself of probation.  This requirement "outlaws the element of
speculation on the part of the accused--to wager on the result of his
appeal--that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the
ISSUE: moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence
Whether or not he may still apply for probation on remand of the case inevitable, he now applies for probation as an `escape hatch' thus
to the trial court given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction."
lower offense and a reduced probationable penalty.
Here, however, Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would
have allowed him to apply for probation.  He did not have a choice
HELD: between appeal and probation.  He was not in a position to say, "By
Ordinarily, Arnel would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation."  The stiff
having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for penalty that the trial court imposed on him denied him that choice.
frustrated homicide. Thus, a ruling that would allow Arnel to now seek probation under this
Court's greatly diminished penalty will not dilute the sound ruling
But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of in Francisco.  It remains that those who will appeal from judgments of
attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the penalty conviction, when they have the option to try for probation, forfeit their
imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months right to apply for that privilege.
of arrestomayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision
correccional, as maximum.  With this new penalty, it would be but fair Besides, in appealing his case, Arnel raised the issue of
to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to correctness of the penalty imposed on him.  He claimed that the
the RTC. evidence at best warranted his conviction only for attempted, not
frustrated, homicide, which crime called for a probationable penalty.  In
Some in the Court disagrees.   They contend that probation is a way, therefore, Arnel sought from the beginning to bring down the
a mere privilege granted by the state only to qualified convicted penalty to the level where the law would allow him to apply for
offenders.  Section 4 of the probation law (PD 968) provides: "That no probation.
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction”. In a real sense, the Court's finding that Arnel was guilty, not
Since Arnel appealed his conviction for frustrated homicide, he should of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original
be deemed permanently disqualified from applying for probation. conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable
penalty.  Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have
But, firstly, while it is true that probation is a mere privilege, found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right
the point is not that Arnel has the right to such privilege; he certainly penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would have
does not have.  What he has is the right to apply for that privilege.  The afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.
Court finds that his maximum jail term should only be 2 years and 4
months.  If the Court allows him to apply for probation because of the The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right
lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether or not to probation through no fault of his. The underlying philosophy of
to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into account the full probation is one of liberality towards the accused. Such philosophy is
circumstances of his case. not served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the statutory
provisions. As Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in his dissent
Secondly, it is true that under the probation law the accused in Francisco, the Probation Law must not be regarded as a mere
who appeals "from the judgment of conviction" is disqualified from privilege to be given to the accused only where it clearly appears he
availing himself of the benefits of probation.  But, as it happens, two comes within its letter; to do so would be to disregard the teaching in
judgments of conviction have been meted out to Arnel: one, a many cases that the Probation Law should be applied in favor of the
conviction for frustrated homicide by the regional trial court, now set accused not because it is a criminal law but to achieve its beneficent
aside; and, two, a conviction for attempted homicide by the Supreme purpose.
Court.
One of those who dissent from this decision points out that
If the Court chooses to go by the dissenting opinion's hard allowing Arnel to apply for probation after he appealed from the trial
position, it will apply the probation law on Arnel based on the trial court's judgment of conviction would not be consistent with the
court's annulled judgment against him.  He will not be entitled to provision of Section 2 that the probation law should be interpreted to
probation because of the severe penalty that such judgment imposed "provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender."  An
on him.  More, the Supreme Court's judgment of conviction for a lesser accused like Arnel who appeals from a judgment convicting him, it is
offense and a lighter penalty will also have to bend over to the trial claimed, shows no penitence.
court's judgment--even if this has been found in error.  And, worse,
Arnel will now also be made to pay for the trial court's erroneous This may be true if the trial court meted out to Arnel a correct
judgment with the forfeiture of his right to apply for probation.  Ang judgment of conviction.  Here, however, it convicted Arnel of the wrong
kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sa kalabaw (the horse errs, the crime, frustrated homicide that carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. 
carabao gets the whip).  Where is justice there? How can the Court expect him to feel penitent over a crime, which as
the Court now finds, he did not commit?  He only committed attempted
The dissenting opinion also expresses apprehension that homicide with its maximum penalty of 2 years and 4 months.
allowing Arnel to apply for probation would dilute the ruling of this Court
in Francisco v. Court of Appeals . that the probation law requires that an Ironically, if the Court denies Arnel the right to apply for probation
accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail under the reduced penalty, it would be sending him straight behind
himself of probation.  But there is a huge difference bars.  It would be robbing him of the chance to instead undergo
between Francisco and this case. reformation as a penitent offender, defeating the very purpose of the
probation law.
In Francisco, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati
found the accused guilty of grave oral defamation and sentenced him At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right
to a prison term of one year and one day to one year and eight months and imposed on Arnel the correct penalty of two years and four months
maximum, he would have had the right to apply for probation.  No one An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable... the
could say with certainty that he would have availed himself of the right Probation Law is not a penal law for it to be liberally construed to favor
had the RTC done right by him.  The idea may not even have crossed the... accused.
his mind precisely since the penalty he got was not probationable.
On the other hand, probation should not be granted to the accused in
DIMAKUTA V. PEOPLE the following instances:

Facts: 1. When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a crime

where the penalty imposed is within the probationable period
In the present controversy, petitioner Mustapha Dimakuta y Maruhom or a fine, and the accused files a notice of appeal; and
alias Boyet was indicted for Violation of Section 5 Paragraph (b),
Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 or the Special Protection of 2. When the accused files a notice of appeal which puts the
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discriminatory merits of his conviction in issue, even if there is an
alternative prayer for the correction of the penalty imposed
Act by the trial court or for a conviction to a lesser crime, which is
necessarily included... in the crime in which he was
After trial, the RTC promulgated its Decision... which convicted convicted where the penalty is within the probationable
petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer an period.
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years of
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years,... four (4) months Both instances violate the spirit and letter of the law, as Section 4 of
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with the the Probation Law prohibits granting an application for probation if an
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. In addition, he appeal from the sentence of conviction has been perfected by the
was directed to pay a fine of P20,000.00, civil indemnity of P25,000.00, accused.
and moral damages of P25,000.00.
In this case, petitioner appealed the trial court's judgment of conviction
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals before the CA alleging that it was error on the part of the RTC to have
(CA) arguing, among other things, that even assuming he committed found him guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
the acts imputed, still there is no evidence showing that the same were He argued that the RTC should not have given much faith... and
done without the victim's consent or through force, duress,... credence to the testimony of the victim because it was tainted with
intimidation or violence upon her. inconsistencies. Moreover, he went on to assert that even assuming he
committed the acts imputed on him, still there was no evidence
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), relying heavily on People v. showing that the lascivious acts were committed without consent or
Abello,... opined that petitioner should have been convicted only of through... force, duress, intimidation or violence because the victim at
Acts of that time was in deep slumber. It is apparent that petitioner anchored
his appeal on a claim of innocence and/or lack of sufficient evidence to
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in support his conviction of the offense charged, which is clearly...
view of the prosecution's failure to establish that the lascivious acts inconsistent with the tenor of the Probation Law that only qualified
were attended by force or coercion because the victim was asleep at penitent offender are allowed to apply for probation
the time the alleged acts were committed.
In this case, petitioner appealed the trial court's judgment of conviction
On June 28, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision... adopting the before the CA alleging that it was error on the part of the RTC to have
recommendation of the OSG. In modifying the RTC Decision, petitioner found him guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
was found guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the He argued that the RTC should not have given much faith... and
RPC and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty... of six (6) credence to the testimony of the victim because it was tainted with
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) inconsistencies. Moreover, he went on to assert that even assuming he
months of prision correctional, as maximum. Likewise, he was ordered committed the acts imputed on him, still there was no evidence
to pay P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral showing that the lascivious acts were committed without consent or
damages. through... force, duress, intimidation or violence because the victim at
that time was in deep slumber. It is apparent that petitioner anchored
Instead of further appealing the case, he filed on July 23, 2012 before his appeal on a claim of innocence and/or lack of sufficient evidence to
the CA a manifestation with motion to allow him to apply for probation support his conviction of the offense charged, which is clearly...
upon remand of the case to the RTC. inconsistent with the tenor of the Probation Law that only qualified
penitent offender are allowed to apply for probation.
Petitioner invoked the case of Colinares v. People... which allowed
petitioner therein to apply for probation after his sentence was later Thus, it is clear that petitioner could not have been entitled to apply for
reduced on appeal by the Supreme Court. probation in the first place. Regrettably, since neither the accused nor
the OSG questioned the CA Decision, it has attained finality and to
Issues:
correct the error at this stage is already barred by the right... of the
whether he may avail of probation based on the review by the accused against double jeopardy.
appellate court of the crime and/or penalty imposed by the trial court.
Based on the above disquisitions, the petitioner should be denied the
Ruling: benefit of the Probation Law and that the Court should adopt the
recommendations above-stated in situations where an accused files an
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. - Subject to the provisions of this Decree, appeal for the sole purpose of correcting the penalty imposed to
the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a qualify... him for probation or where he files an appeal specifically
defendant and upon application by said defendant within the period for claiming that he should be found guilty of a lesser offense necessarily
perfecting an appeal, suspend... the execution of the sentence and included with the crime originally filed with a prescribed penalty which
place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms is probationable.
and conditions as it may deem best; Provided, that no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected
the appeal from the... judgment of conviction.

Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of

imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed
with the trial court. The filing of the application shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal.
 subsequently filed an application for probation. The MTC denied his
application, prompting ALMERO to file a special civil action with the
RTC. ALMERO’s first petition raised the sole issue of the denial of his
application for probation. ALMERO also filed a Supplemental Petition
arguing that his conviction was flawed and premature since the MTC
never ruled upon his formal offer of exhibits. The RTC ruled in favor of
ALMERO. CA reversed the earlier decision. Is ALMERO entitled to
probation?
ALMERO VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 188191 | March 12, 2014
A: No. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in observing that
the application for probation is a waiver of the right to appeal.
Appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. The application
for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of the accused for the
Probation is not a right but a mere privilege, an act of grace and
crime which led to the judgment of conviction. Probation is not a right,
clemency conferred by the State, and may be granted by the court to a
but a mere privilege.
deserving defendant. Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely
upon the discretion of the court.
SERENO, J.
Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the
FACTS: ALMERO was found guilty by the Municipal Trial Court of accused, the rationale for the treatment of appeal and probation as
Labo, Camarines Norte for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically opposed
to homicide and multiple physical injuries. On September 7, 2007, legal positions. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have
ALMERO filed an Application for Probation, reasoning that he was accepted the judgment. The application for probation is an admission
informed of his conviction only upon being served the warrant of his of guilt on the part of an accused for the crime which led to the
arrest. The prosecutor opposed his application for being judgment of conviction. (Almero v. People, G.R. No. 188191, March
uncooperative, habitually absent, and failure to inform the court of his 12, 2014)
change of address. The MTC denied his application, prompting
ALMERO to file a special civil action with the RTC. He also filed a
Supplemental Petition arguing that his conviction was flawed and
premature since the MTC never ruled upon his formal offer of exhibits.

The RTC ruled in favor of ALMERO, holding that the MTC committed
grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case without first ruling on
Enrique’s formal of exhibits, since technically, he had not yet rested his
case. On reversal, CA ruled that the RTC should have confined itself to
the question of whether the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion
in denying ALMERO’s application for probation. An application for
probation is a waiver of the right to appeal.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not CA committed an error of law in ruling that
petitioner is not entitled to probation.

HELD:

No, the instant petition lacks merit.

Probation is not a right but a mere privilege, an act of grace and

clemency conferred by the State, and may be granted by the court to a
deserving defendant. Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely
upon the discretion of the court. It is to be exercised primarily for the
benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the
accused.

The law expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed
his conviction before he can avail of probation. Appeal and probation
are mutually exclusive remedies. An accused applying for probation is
deemed to have accepted the judgment. The application for probation
is an admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the crime which
led to the judgment of conviction. This was the reason why the
Probation Law was amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of
appealing from judgments of conviction – even if the sentence is
probationable – for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying
for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid.

Similarly, in the present case, petitioner cannot make up his mind

whether to question the judgment, or apply for probation, which is
necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to appeal. While he did not file
an appeal before applying for probation, he assailed the validity of the
conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly assailing the denial of
probation.  In so doing, he attempted to circumvent P.D. No. 968, as
amended by P.D. 1990, which seeks to make appeal and probation
mutually exclusive remedies.”

SUMMARY FORMAT

Q: ALMERO was found guilty for the crime of reckless imprudence

resulting to homicide and multiple physical injuries. ALMERO
 SUYAN was sentenced to suffer a prison term of six years. He
immediately filed his application for probation. The RTC issued a
Probation Order covering the period of six years. While SUYAN was on
probation, he was arrested on two occasions for drug possession. The
Chief Probation and Parole Officer (ATTY. NAVARRO) filed a Motion
to Revoke Probation considering that SUYAN was a recidivist.
Prosecution also submitted a Violation report manifesting the
unreformed attitude of SUYAN and his continued illegal drug activities
while on probation. The RTC then revoked the probation and ordered
SUYAN VS. PEOPLE SUYAN to serve the sentence imposed upon him. Was the revocation
G.R. No. 189644 | July 2, 2014 of probation proper?

Section 11 of the Probation Law provides that the commission of A: Yes, the probation of SUYAN was validly revoked by the lower
another offense shall render the probation order ineffective. As court. Petitioner does not deny the fact that he has been convicted and
probation is a mere discretionary grant, petitioner was bound to that he has served out his sentence for another offense while on
observe full obedience to the terms and conditions pertaining to the probation. Consequently, his commission of another offense is a direct
probation order or run the risk of revocation of this privilege. violation of a condition of his Probation Order. Section 11 of the
Probation Law provides that the commission of another offense shall
SERENO, J. render the probation order ineffective.

FACTS: SUYAN was charged with violation of Section 16, Article III of Sec. 11. Effectivity of Probation Order.—A probation order shall
Republic Act No. 6425. He pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court take effect upon its issuance, at which time the court shall inform the
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of six years of prision correctional. offender of the consequences thereof and explain that upon his failure
He filed his application for probation on the same day. RTC issued a to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or his
Probation Order covering a period of six years. commission of another offense, he shall serve the penalty
imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation.
While on probation, he was arrested again on two separate occasions,
both for violations of Section 16 of RA 6425. Two separate As probation is a mere discretionary grant, petitioner was bound to
Informations were filed against him. Because of this, the Chief of the observe full obedience to the terms and conditions pertaining to the
Parole and Probation Office (ATTY. NAVARRO) recommended the probation order or run the risk of revocation of this privilege.
revocation of his probation, citing recidivism. NAVARRO also pointed Regrettably, petitioner wasted the opportunity granted him by the RTC
out that SUYAN was no longer in a position to comply with the to remain outside prison bars, and must now suffer the consequences
conditions of his probation, in view of his incarceration. of his violation. (Suyan v. People, G.R. No. 189644, July 2, 2012)

The RTC ordered the revocation of SUYAN’s probation and directed

him to serve his sentence. SUYAN then interposed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals. He argued that he was not accorded due process.
Finding merit in his petition, the CA ordered the remand of the case to
the RTC for further proceedings. Thus, the RTC conducted a hearing
on the Motion to Revoke.

The Parole and Probation Office filed a Violation Report where it stated
that probationer SUYAN showed negative attitude towards
rehabilitation and instead continued with his illegal drug activities
despite counseling and warning from the Office. The prosecution
likewise filed its Formal Offer of Evidence where it attached a
certification from another court that SUYAN has already served his
sentence on the other drug charges against him. SUYAN filed his
Comment but did not dispute the certification.

After hearing, the RTC issued an Order revoking the probation.

SUYAN appealed with the CA, but the same was denied.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the probation was validly revoked.

HELD:

Yes, the probation of SUYAN was validly revoked.

Petitioner does not deny the fact that he has been convicted, and that
he has served out his sentence for another offense while on probation.
Consequently, his commission of another offense is a direct violation of
the condition in his Probation Order, and the effects are clearly outlined
in Section 11 of the Probation Law. Section 11 of the Probation Law
provides that the commission of another offense shall render the
probation order ineffective.

The Court’s discretion to grant probation is to be exercised primarily for

the benefit of organized society and only incidentally for the benefit of
the accused. Having the power to grant probation, it follows that the
trial court also has the power to order its revocation in a proper case
and under appropriate circumstances.

SUMMARY FORMAT

Q: SUYAN was charged and found guilty of violating Section 16, Article
III of Republic Act No. 6425 or the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972”.
 In the cited case, this Court ruled that:

... The death of accused-appellant Bonifacio Alison having been

established, and considering that there is as yet no final judgment in
view of the pendency of the appeal, the criminal and civil liability of the
said accused-appellant Alison was extinguished by his death.

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the prayer of the Solicitor General,

the case against the appellant, the late Paulino Rondina, is dismissed
with costs de oficio.chanrobles virtual law library
G.R. No. L-26282 August 27, 1976

SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENITO
SATORRE and PAULINO RONDINA accused-appellants.

RESOLUTION

CONCEPCION, JR., J:

In Criminal Case No. 2641 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte,

Branch VI, the accused Benito Satorre and Paulino Rondina were
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double murder
and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each of the two murders, to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of
each of the deceased Carlos Espina and Loreto Silva the sum of Six
Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency and to pay the costs. 1

Both accused appealed to this Court.chanrobles virtual law library

On February 13, 1976, a letter addressed to the Clerk of Court of this

Court, was received from the Administrative Officer of the Bureau of
Prisons, reading as follows:

This is to inform that Honorable Court that defendant-appellant

PAULINO RONDINA No. 8553-D in G.R. No. L-26282 (Criminal Case
No. 2641 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Carigara), for Double
Murder, died of Peptic Ulcer, Bleeding, on December 11, 1975 in the
New Bilibid Prison, Hospital, Muntinlupa, Rizal. 2

On March 31, 1976, this Court adopted the following Resolution:

Considering the letter dated February 13, 1976 of Administrative

Officer Gerardo N. San Pedro of the Bureau of Prisons, addressed to
the Clerk of Court, informing this Court that accused-appellant Paulino
Rondina died of peptic ulcer, bleeding on December 11, 1975 in the
New Bilibid Prison Hospital, Muntinlupa, Rizal, the Court Resolved to
require the Solicitor General to COMMENT on said letter within ten
(10) days from notice. 3

Pursuant to the above Resolution, the Solicitor General filed his

comment, 4 on June 2, 1976, alleging among others that:

5. Going over the ROLLO of this case with this Honorable Court, we
found that the appellant Rondina hails from Leyte, Leyte (Amended
Information p. 31, Roll; Minutes of April 3, 1965 session, p. 49, Roll)
which address/birthplace also appears as the deceased's
address/birthplace in Annex "A". Further, appellant Rondina's prison
number as stated in the Death Certificate (Annex "A") is No. 8553-D.
This is the same prisoner number stated in the letter of Administrative
Officer San Pedro informing this Honorable Court of appellant
Rondina's death (p. 155, Roll), although in p. 24, of the Roll, there is a
letter purportedly written by the appellant to this Honorable Court
withdrawing his appeal, which letter is signed: Paulino Rondina No.
8653-D. Notwithstanding the discrepancy, it appears that the person
mentioned in the death certificate and in the records of the case are
one and the same person: appellant Paulino Rondina. 5

and, recommends that the case against the appellant Paulino Rondina
be dismissed, citing the case of People vs. Alison. 6
 negligence, the 1st element was undeniably wanting. Bradcardia would
not ordinarily occur during the process of a pull-through operation.

(2) NO!
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the
interest of another person that degree of care, precaution, and
vigilance that the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury. Reckless imprudence, on the other hand,
SOLIDUM vs. PEOPLE consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from
GR No. 192123 – March 10, 2014 which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of
Bersamin precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform
such act.
SUBJECT: Reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries
The prosecution did not prove the elements of reckless imprudence
FACTS: BRD because the circumstances cited by the CA were insufficient to
Gerald Albert Gercayo was born with an imperforate anus. 2 days after establish that Dr. Solidum had been guilty of inexcusable lack of
his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy. 1 3 year after, Gerald was precaution in monitoring the administration of the anesthetic agent of
admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. Gerald.
Petitioner Dr. Solidum was one of the anesthesiologists. During the
operation, Gerald experiences bradycardia, 2 and went into a come. His An action upon medical negligence – whether criminal, civil or
coma lasted for 2 weeks, but he regained consciousness only after a administrative – calls for the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence
month. He could no longer see, hear or move. each of the following 4 elements, namely;
a) The duty owned by the physician to the patient, as created
Agitated by her son’s helpless and unexpected condition, Ma Luz by the physician-patient relationship, to act in accordance
Gercayo lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in with the specific norms or standards established by his
serious physical injuries. profession;
b) The breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act in
RTC: guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical accordance with the applicable standard of care;
injuries. Solidum failed to monitor and to properly regulate the level of c) The causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably close and
anesthetic agent administered on Gerald. causal connection between the negligent act or omission and
CA: Affirmed. Applied the doctrine of res ipsa liquitor. the resulting injury; and
d) The damages suffered by the patient.
ISSUE:
(1) WON the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was applicable The standard of care is an objective standard by which the conduct of
(2) WON Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence. a physician sued for negligence or malpractice may be measured, and
it does not depend, therefore, on any individual physician's own
HELD: knowledge either. In attempting to fix a standard by which a court may
(1) Res Ipsa Liquitor cannot be applied. determine whether the physician has properly performed the requisite
RIL is literally translated as “the thing or the transaction speaks for duty toward the patient, expert medical testimony from both plaintiff
itself.” It means that “where the thing which causes injury is shown to and defense experts is required. The judge, as the trier of fact,
be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such ultimately determines the standard of care, after listening to the
as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have testimony of all medical experts
the management use proper case, it affords reasonable evidence, in
the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident The testimonies the prosecution presented did not prove beyond
arose from want of case.” It is applied in conjunction with the doctrine reasonable doubt that Dr. Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in
of common knowledge. administering the anesthetic agent to Gerald. Dr. Solidum was
criminally charged for “failing to monitor and regulate properly the
However, the doctrine is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a levels of anesthesia administered to said Gerla and using 100%
mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. The doctrine, when halothan and other anesthetic medications.” However, the findings of
applicable to the facts and circumstances of a given case, is not meant Dr. Vertido, one of the anesthesiologist, was revealingly concluded that
to and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable “although the anesthesiologists followed the normal routine and
negligence against the party charged. It merely determines or precautionary procedures, still hyproxia 3 and its corresponding side
regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof, and help the effects did occur.” Hence, 100% halothan is not what should be
plaintiff in proving a breach of duty. It can be invoked on when, under administered, it should be 100% oxygen.
the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily
available.

Essential requisites:
a) The accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur
b) unless someone is negligent;
c) The instrumentality or agency that caused the injury under
the exclusive control of the person charged; and
d) The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution of the person injured.

Although is the 2nd and 3rd element are present, considering that the
anesthetic agent and the instruments were exclusively within the
control of Dr. Solidum, and that the patient, being then unconscious
during the operation, could not have been guilty of contributory
1
A surgical procedure to bring one end of the large intestine
out through the abdominal wall, enabling him to excrete
through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body.
2
An abnormally slow heart rate of less than 60 beats per 3
minute. A normal heartbeat is between 60 and 100 beats per Deficiency in the amount of the oxygen reaching
minute. the tissues.