Leandro Carillo v. People G.R. No. 86890 January 21, 1994 FELICIANO, J.

FACTS: Catherine Acosta (Catherine), a 13yr old girl complained of pains in the lower part of her abdomen. The
parents in turn informed their family doctor, Dr. Elva Pena (Pena). The latter called for Dr. Emilio Madrid
(Madrid) which diagnosed the same to be appendicitis, thus told the parents of Catherine to bring her to the
Baclaran General Hospital. At hospital, the child was scheduled for operation at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
However, the actual operation took place at 5:45 p.m. because Dr. Madrid arrived only at that time.

When brought inside the operating room, the child appeared to be well so they did not subject the child to ECG
(electrocardiogram) and X-ray. Dr. Madrid was assisted by Dr. Leandro Carillo (Carillo) the anesthesiologist. Dr.
Carillo did not perform any weight test to determine the safe amount of anesthesia (Nubain) to be used on
Catherine.

After the operation, Yolanda, Catherine’s mother, noticed that her daughter was pale, shivering, had difficulty
in breathing and a weak heartbeat and Dr. Madrid suggested that she placed under oxygen tank. Thereafter, Dr.
Carillo and Dr. Madrid left. Later, Yolanda noticed that Catherine had convulsions and her body was stiffening so the
nurses called on Dr. Carillo. Her parents asked Dr. Carillo if she was going to be alright to which Dr. Carillo
replied “that it is nothing, the child will regain consciousness and if the child will not regain consciousness, I will
resign as a doctor.” When Catherine remained unconscious until the next day, a neurologist examined her and she
was diagnosed as comatose. 3days later, Catherine died without regaining consciousness.

Yolanda Acosta (Yolanda), Catherine’s mother, filed a complaint against Dr. Carillo and Dr. Madrid before the RTC of
Paranaque. The RTC convicted Dr. Carillo of the crime of simple negligence resulting in homicide. The CA affirmed
the judgment of conviction.

ISSUE:
Whether Dr. Carillo and Dr. Madrid acted negligently in their duties which resulted to the death of their patient.

RULLING:
YES, both doctors acted negligently in providing the proper care to their patient, during and post operation.

The following negligent acts were found: Dr. Madrid did not take intensive preoperative preparations, like the
immediate administration of antibiotics which is a standard procedure for those who have been diagnosed, and
suspected to have their appendix ruptured; Dr. Carillo being late (45mins) for the surgery which would increase the
morbidity of the patient.; Dr. Carillo failing to weigh the patient to know the safe dosage of the
anesthesia considering that there has been no experience to the administration thereof to a patient less than 18
years of age; Dr. Madrid and Dr. Carillo did not submit Catherine to intensive care when it was apparent that
Catherine was pale, shivering, had irregular breathing and a weak heartbeat post operation; Failure of both doctors
to inform the parents of Catherine the severity of the
situation or the nature of the sickness that their daughter is experiencing.

POINTS OF LAW:

Petitioner should serve the interest of his patient with the greatest of solicitude giving them always his best talent
and skill.—Once summoned, petitioner anaesthesiologist could not be readily found. When he finally appeared at
10:30 in the evening, he was evidently in a bad temper, commenting critically on the dextrose bottles before ordering
their removal. This circumstance indicated he was not disposed to attend to this unexpected call, in violation of the
canons of his profession that as a physician, he should serve the interest of his patient “with the greatest of
solicitude, giving them always his best talent and skill.”

A physician is required to attend to his patients faithfully and conscientiously.—The canons of medical ethics require
a physician to “attend to his patients faithfully and conscientiously.” He should secure for them all possible benefits
that may depend upon his professional skill and care. As the sole tribunal to adjudge the physician’s failure to fulfill
his obligation to his patient is, in most cases, his own conscience, violation of this rule on his part is “discreditable
and inexcusable.”

Simple negligence is defined as a mere lack of prevision in a situation where either the threatened harm is not
immediate or the danger not openly visible.—As early as in People v. Vistan, the Court defined simple negligence,
penalized under what is now Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as “a mere lack of prevision in a situation where
either the threatened harm is not immediate or the danger not openly visible.” Put in a slightly different way, the
gravamen of the offense of simple negligence is the failure to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by the
situation which was not immediately life-destructive but which culminated, in the present case, in the death of a
human being three (3) days later. Such failure to exercise the necessary degree of care and diligence is a negative
ingredient of the offense charged.