People v. Golez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information was filed charging Anunciacion Vda. de Golez with homicide through reckless imprudence for allegedly diagnosing, prescribing, and treating one Susana Tam without being duly licensed to practice medicine, and with reckless negligence, which resulted in the patient's death. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court, motu proprio, dismissed the information, finding it fatally defective because the facts charged did not constitute homicide through reckless imprudence, as illegal practice of medicine is considered malicious per se and cannot be imputed to a person without authority to practice. The court reasoned that the crime under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code arises from a lawful act done without due care, not from an unlawful act. The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the dismissal order, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the information fatally defective and that the facts charged did constitute homicide through reckless imprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the information for homicide through reckless imprudence. Whether the dismissal of the information, after the accused pleaded not guilty, placed the accused in double jeopardy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the information. However, the appeal was dismissed because further proceedings would place the accused in double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing the information for homicide through reckless imprudence: The Supreme Court held that the trial court's dismissal was erroneous. The Court clarified that the illegal practice of medicine is a statutory offense where criminal intent is presumed, and conviction is possible regardless of intent or good faith. The offense consists of the mere act of practicing medicine in violation of the Medical Law, even without injury or death. When a patient dies as a result of such illegal practice, the practitioner is responsible for the death, which is an offense distinct from the illegal practice itself. The allegations that the accused acted with reckless negligence in diagnosing, prescribing, and treating the deceased, knowing her lack of skill and causing her death, sufficiently charged the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. Ordinary diligence requires one not to tamper with human life by attempting treatment without the necessary skill, as harm can be reasonably foreseen. On the issue of whether the dismissal placed the accused in double jeopardy: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the information, after the accused had pleaded not guilty and without her consent, constituted double jeopardy. The Court stated that the information, being valid and sufficient in form and substance, should have sustained a conviction. Therefore, the dismissal barred further proceedings upon the case, irrespective of the accused's failure to raise the issue of double jeopardy in her brief.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of an information for homicide through reckless imprudence, after the accused has pleaded not guilty, without the consent of the accused, constitutes double jeopardy and bars further proceedings, even if the dismissal was based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute the offense, provided the information was valid and sufficient.