DOCTRINE OF OSTENSIBLE AGENCY/ APPARENT AUTHORITY care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation that the injury arose from the defendant’s want of
The doctrine of apparent authority a hospital can be held care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that
vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing he has observed due care and diligence.14
care at the hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an
independent contractor, unless the patient knows, or should From the foregoing statements of the rule, the requisites for the
have known, that the physician is an independent contractor. applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are:
The elements of the action have been set out as follows:
(1) the occurrence of an injury;
For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent
authority, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, (2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and
acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to management of the defendant;
conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent
was an employee or agent of the hospital; (3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things,
would not have happened if those who had control or
(2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of management used proper care; and
authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had
knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (4) the absence of explanation by the defendant. Of the
foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the "control and
(3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the management of the thing which caused the injury."
hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and
prudence. CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP
Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating surgeon is the
The doctrine of apparent authority essentially involves two person in complete charge of the surgery room and all
personnel connected with the operation.
factors to determine the liability of an independent-contractor
(PSI V. AGANA, G.R. No. 126467)
physician.
PHYSICAL INJURIES
1. Mutilation (Art. 262)
The first factor focuses on the hospitals manifestations and is
2. Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 263)
sometimes described as an inquiry whether the hospital acted in
3. Administering injurious substance or beverages (Art. 264)
a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude 4. Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265)
that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an 6. Slight physical injuries (Art. 266)
employee or agent of the hospital.[47] In this regard, the hospital Mutilation
need not make express representations to the patient that the Two kinds of Mutilation
treating physician is an employee of the hospital; rather a 1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him or her
either totally or partially, of some essential for production. Penalty
representation may be general and implied.[48] of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua.
2. By intentionally making other mutilation that is by lopping or
clipping off any part of the body of the body of the offended
The second factor focuses on the patients reliance. It is party, OTHER THAN the essential organ for reproduction, to
deprive him of that part of the body. Penalty of prision mayor in
sometimes characterized as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff its medium and maximum period.
acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, Element of Mutilation
consistent with ordinary care and prudence.[54] (NOGALES V. 1. Castration, mutilation of organs necessary for generation such
as the penis or ovarium.
CMC G.R. No. 142625)
2. That the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately that
is to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for
RES IPSA LOQUITUR reproduction.
Literally, res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself." It is Any other intentional mutilation
the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with
the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise Deliberate purpose of depriving of that part of his body, it is
a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima intentional mutilation under the second paragraph of Art. 262.
facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet Mayhem is other mutilation.
with an explanation. Stated differently, where the thing which
caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the Serious Physical Injuries
exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it
should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper How committed?
1. By wounding Qualified less physical injuries
2. By beating or 1. A fine not exceeding Php 500, in addition to arresto mayor
shall be imposed physical injuries when –
3. By assaulting or
a. there is manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person or
4. By administering injurious substance
b. circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.
What are physical injurious?
2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either –
a) Injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or
blind a. Offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or
b) Injured person teachers or
a. loses :
i. Use of speech b. Person of rank or persons in authority provided the crime is not
ii. Power to hear direct assault.
iii. Power to smell
iv. An eye Actual Medical attendance.
v. Hand
There must be proof of as to the period of the required medical
vi. Foot
attendance.
vii. Arm
viii. Leg
Slight physical injuries (Art. 266)
b. Loses the use any such member or
c. becomes incapacitated for the work he Three kind of slight physical injuries
was habitually engaged
c) Injured person: 1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended party for a
a. Becomes deformed period of one day to nine days or required medical attendance
i. Deformity – physical ugliness, during the same period.
permanent and definite
abnormality. Must be 2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from
conspicuous and visible engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical
b. Loses any other member of his body attendance.
c. Loses the use thereof
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the 3. Ill –treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.
performance of work for more than 90
days People v. Buling (G.R. No. L-13315) – Supervening event
d) Injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for more converting less physical injuries to serious physical injuries
than 30 days
Counsel for the appellant claims that no fact had supervened in
Medical Attendance - not important in serious physical injuries. the case at bar, as a result of which another offense had been
ommitted. It is argued that the injury and the condition thereof
However where category of the offense of serious physical was the same when the first examination was made on
injuries depends on the period of illness or incapacity for labor, December 10, 1956, as when the examination was made on
there must be evidence of the length of that period. January 18, 1957, and that if any new fact had been disclosed
in the latter examination failure of this new fact to be disclosed
QUALIFIED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. in the previous examination may be attributed to the
incompetence on the part of the examining physician. We find
If the offense is committed against any of the persons much reason in this argument. What happened is no X-ray
enumerated in the article defining parricide. examination of the wounded hand was made during the first
examination, which was merely superficial. The physician who
ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES (Art.264) made the first examination could not have seen the fracture at
the distal end of the right arm, and this could only be apparent
Elements:
or visible by X-ray photography.
1. That offender inflicted upon another any serious physical
People v. Yorac (G.R. No. L-29270) – Prior plea of guilt for slight
injury.
physical injuries bars trial for frustrated murder if there is no
supervening event.
2. That it was done by knowingly administering to him any
injurious substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his
Under the circumstances above indicated, we are inclined to
weakness of mind and credulity.
agree with the contention made on behalf of appellant that no
new supervening fact has existed or occurred, which has
3. That he had no intent to kill.
transformed the offense from less serious physical injuries to
Less physical injuries (Art. 265) serious physical injuries. The constitutional right not to be put
twice in jeopardy for the same offense was the basis for a motion
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for more than 10 to quash filed by the accused, now appellee, Rodrigo Yorac. He
days but less than 30 days, or need medical attendance for the was prosecuted for frustrated murder arising allegedly from
same period of time. having assaulted, attacked, and hit with a piece of wood the
offended party, for which he had been previously tried and
2. That the physical injuries must not be those described in the sentenced for slight physical injuries, his plea being one of guilt.
preceding articles. The later information for frustrated murder was based on a
second medical certificate after the lapse of one week from the
former previously given by the same physician who, apparently, case less physical injuries considering the attending physicians
was much more thorough the second time, to the effect that the opinion that the wounds sustained by Rogelio would take two
victim did suffer a greater injury than was at first ascertained. The weeks to heal.
lower court, presided by the Honorable Judge Nestor B.
Alampay, considering that there was no, supervening fact that Aguirre v. Sec. of Department of Justice – Vasectomy does not
would negate the defense of double jeopardy, sustained the amount to mutilation
motion to quash in an order of June 21, 1968. The People
appealed. As the order complained of is, fully supported by the Though undeniably, vasectomy denies a man of his power of
latest authoritative ruling of this Tribunal, People v. Buling, we reproduction, such procedure does not deprive him, either
have to affirm. totally or partially of some essential organ for reproduction.
People v Fama - Deformity, a supervening fact That part, which was cut, the vas deferens is merely a
passageway that is a duct system of the male reproductive
No finding was made in the first examination that the injuries had organ. The vas deferens is not an organ.
caused deformity and the loss of the use of the right hand. As
nothing was mentioned in the first medical certificate about the Engr. Pentecostes v. People – Lack of intent to kill results to
deformity and the loss of the use of the right hand, we presumed physical injuries
that such fact was not apparent or could have been discernible
When such intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the
at the time the first examination was made. The course (not the
victim, the crime is not attempted murder but physical injuries
length) of the healing of an injury may not be determined before
only. Since the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by the doctor
hand; it can only be definitely known after the period of healing
who attended Rudy stated that the wound would only require
has ended. That is the reason why the court considered that
ten (10) days of medical attendance, and he was, in fact,
there was a supervening fact occuring since the filing of the
discharged the following day, the crime committed is less serious
original information.
physical injuries only. The less serious physical injury suffered by
Enrile v Manalastas- Medical certificate as proof of duration to Rudy is defined under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code,
determine proper crime charged presented only at trial. which provides that "(A)ny person who inflicts upon another
physical injuries not described as serious physical injuries but
As the MTC and RTC rightly held, the presentation of the medical which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten (10)
certificates to prove the duration of the victims’ need for days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same
medical attendance or of their incapacity should take place period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall
only at the trial, not before or during the preliminary suffer the penalty of arresto mayor."
investigation. According to Cinco v. Sandiganbayan, the
preliminary investigation, which is the occasion for the submission People v. Hon. Ocaya – Statements alleged in the information
of the parties’ respective affidavits, counter-affidavits and confers jurisdiction NOT the medical certificate.
evidence to buttress their separate allegations, is merely
Respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in
inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering whether
precipitately dismissing the case for alleged lack of jurisdiction
a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable
on the mere basis of his totally wrong notion that what governs
the prosecutor to prepare the information. It is not yet a trial on
in the filing of a physical injury case is the medical certificate
the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime
regarding the duration of treatment and "not what the victim
has been committed and whether there is probable cause to
declares because the same is self-serving.
believe that the accused is guilty thereof. The scope of the
investigation does not approximate that of a trial before the
Bongalon v. People – What constitutes child abuse?
court; hence, what is required is only that the evidence be
sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and
committed the crime charged, not that all reasonable doubt of the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back
the guilt of the accused be removed. with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we disagree with
their holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the
People v. Mapalo - No evidence of injury
purview of the above-quoted provisions. The records did not
establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on
In the case at bar, no injury was shown to be attributable to the
Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and
appellant. No contusions or injury on the head of the victim or
dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby
anywhere elsewhere in his body caused by a lead pipe was
intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed
shown. No proof on the injury that was sustained by the
the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of
deceased that can be attributable to appellant’s act was
the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then
demonstrated.
overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of
When offender shall ill – treat another by deed without causing his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the
any injury and without causing dishonor, the offense is hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he
maltreatment. Maltreatment is necessarily included in Murder lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the
which is the offense charge. Thus we acquit the appellant for the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was
charge of murder but find him guilty of the crime of so essential in the crime of child abuse.
maltreatment under paragraph 3 of Article 266 of the Revised
Penal Code.
People v. Mupas – Lack of Intent to kill is only physical injuries
When such intent is lacking but wounds were inflicted the crime
is not frustrated homicide but physical injuries only and in this
