People v. Quebral
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In June 1937, an information was filed against Fernando C. Quebral for violating Section 770 of the Administrative Code, alleging that he practiced medicine from 1930 to May 1937 in Pangasinan without obtaining the corresponding certificate of registration from the Board of Medical Examiners. The accused admitted to diagnosing, treating, and prescribing for patients and receiving compensation, but contended that the prosecution failed to prove he lacked the required certificate. Procedural History: The trial court found the accused guilty, holding that it was not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the lack of registration, but rather upon the accused to prove his registration if he relied on it as a defense. The court cited several Supreme Court cases and Section 297 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The accused was sentenced to a fine of P200 with subsidiary imprisonment. The Petition: The accused appealed, reiterating his argument that the prosecution must prove he practiced medicine without the proper certificate, and that its failure to do so warranted acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution has the burden of proving that the accused practiced medicine without a proper certificate of registration. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that the accused practiced medicine without the required certificate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of practicing medicine without the required certificate of registration. The Court ruled that while the prosecution generally bears the burden of proving a negative averment that inheres in the offense, it need only make a prima facie case. In this instance, the Court found sufficient evidence, including an official statement from the Board of Medical Examiners and a letter from the accused, to establish that he was not a registered physician.
Ratio Decidendi
On the burden of proof for the negative averment: The Court clarified the rule regarding negative averments. It stated that if the subject of the negative averment, such as the act of voting without qualifications or practicing medicine without a certificate, is an essential ingredient of the offense, the prosecution bears the burden of proving it. However, the Court also noted that due to the difficulty of proving a negative, the prosecution need only establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. The Court cited Section 297 of Act No. 190 and the case of United States vs. Tria to support this principle. The Court further explained that the difficulty in discharging the burden of proof does not displace it but may relieve the party from creating positive conviction entirely by their own evidence, especially when the opponent remains silent. The Court distinguished this from situations where the negative averment is purely a matter of defense, in which case the burden shifts to the defendant, as discussed in United States vs. Chan Toco. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that the accused practiced medicine without the required certificate. The decision of the lower court mentioned Exhibit F-2, a document signed by the chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners, stating that there was nothing in the Board's records to show that Fernando C. Quebral was a registered physician. The Court held that this document was admissible as evidence of its contents under an exception to the hearsay rule concerning official written statements, citing Wigmore on Evidence. Additionally, Exhibit H-3, a letter from the accused himself, was mentioned as quoting approvingly an article stating that Fernando Quebral was not a holder of a doctor of medicine degree. The Court concluded that these exhibits collectively provided sufficient proof that the accused was practicing medicine without the necessary certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove the negative averment that the accused practiced medicine without a proper certificate of registration, as this is an essential element of the offense under Section 770 of the Administrative Code. However, the prosecution may establish a prima facie case through the best evidence obtainable, and the burden may shift to the accused to prove registration if he claims it as a defense.