NO- The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;(3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on thepart of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstancesregarding persons, time and place.- WON has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of careobserved by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at thetime of treatment or the present state of medical science. - For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is, in the generality of cases, amatter of expert opinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the latter possess unusualtechnical skills which laymen in most instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating. Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that thecircumstances cited by the courts below are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of care employed by other physicians in good standingwhen performing the same operation. It must be remembered that when the qualifications of a physician are admitted, as in the instant case, there isan inevitable presumption that in proper cases he takes the necessary precaution and employs the best of his knowledge and skill in attending to hisclients, unless the contrary is sufficiently established. This presumption is rebuttable by expert opinion, which is so sadly lacking in the case at bench.- Even without expert testimony, that petitioner was recklessly imprudent in the exercise of her duties as a surgeon, no cogent proof exists that any of these circumstances caused petitioner's death. Thus, the absence of the fourth element of reckless imprudence: that the injury to the person orproperty was a consequence of the reckless imprudence.- In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing appellant's negligence and for a reasonable conclusion of negligence, there must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a casual connection of such breach and the resulting death of his patient.
PHIL. RABBIT V PEOPLEFACTS
Napoleon Macadangdang was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries anddamage to property and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years, and to pay damages. But in the event theaccused becomes insolvent, Phil. Rabbit will be held liable for the civil liabilities. But admittedly, the accused jumped bail and remained at large.
WON an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of its accused-employee, may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of theaccused
NO- The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise arrested within 15days from notice of the judgment against them While at large, they cannot seek relief from the court, as they are deemed to have waived the appeal.In the case before us, the accused-employee has escaped and refused to surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is deemed to have abandonedhis appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him has become final and executory.- After a judgment has become final, the winning party acquires vested rights. If the proper losing party has the right to file an appeal within theprescribed period, then the former has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.- In fact, petitioner admits that by helping the accused-employee, it participated in the proceedings before the RTC; thus, it cannot be said that theemployer was deprived of due process. It might have lost its right to appeal, but it was not denied its day in court. In fact, it can be said that by jumping bail, the accused-employee, not the court, deprived petitioner of the right to appeal.- On Subsidiary Liability Upon Finality of Judgment:- Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the event of thelatter are insolvency.- To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by acompetent court By the same token, to allow them to appeal the final criminal conviction of their employees witho
ut the latter’s consent would also
result in improperly amending, nullifying or defeating the judgment.- The decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to th
e former’s civil liabilit
y,but also with regard to its amount. The liability of an employer cannot be separated from that of the employee
Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
PEOPLE V LIGONFACTS
- February 17, 1986, RTC convicted Fernando Gabat, of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua where he robbed and killedJose Rosales y Ortiz, a seventeen-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. He was allegedly robbed of his cigarettebox containing cigarettes worth P300.00 more or less. Rogelio Ligon,the co-accused, was never apprehended and is still at large.- October 23, 1983 - at about 6:10 p.m. Gabat, was riding in a 1978 Volkswagen Kombi owned by his father and driven by the other accused, Ligonwhich was coming from España Street going towards the direction of Quiapo. At the intersection of Quezon Boulevard and Lerma Street before turningleft towards the underpass at C.M. Recto Avenue, they stopped. While waiting, Gabat beckoned a cigarette vendor, Rosales to buy some cigarettesfrom him. Rosales approached the Kombi and handed Gabat two sticks of cigarettes. While this transaction was occurring, the traffic light changed togreen, and the Kombi driven by Rogelio Ligon suddenly moved forward.
As to what precisely happened between Gabat and Rosales at thecrucial moment, and immediately thereafter, is the subject of conflicting versions
by the prosecution and the defense. It is not controverted,however, that as the Kombi continued to speed towards Quiapo,
Rosales clung to the window of the Kombi but apparently lost his grip andfell down on the pavement
. Some bystanders rushed Rosales to the Philippine General Hospital, where he was treated for multiple physical injuriesand was confined thereat until his death on October 30, 1983.- Following close behind (about 3 meters) the Kombi at the time of the incident was a taxicab driven by Castillo. He was traveling on the same lane in aslightly oblique position. The Kombi did not stop after the victim fell down on the pavement near the foot of the underpass; Castillo pursued it as itsped towards Roxas Boulevard, beeping his horn to make the driver stop. When they reached the Luneta near the Rizal monument, Castillo saw anowner-type jeep with two persons in it. He sought their assistance in chasing the Kombi, telling them "nakaaksidente ng tao." The two men in the jeep