ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46094   September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL<br /><br />068 Phil 564

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46094. September 27, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL, Defendant-Appellant.

    Mabanag, Primicias, Abad & Mencias for Appellant.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Kapunan, jr., for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; VIOLATION OF SECTION 770 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROVING NEGATIVE AVERMENT. — There is no question that the accused diagnosed, treated and prescribed for certain diseases suffered by certain patients, from whom he received money as compensation; but it is contended that no evidence has been adduced to the effect that the accused had thus practiced medicine "without having previously obtained the proper certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners," as provided in section 770 of the Administrative Code. The rule is, and has always been, that, if the subject of the negative averment, like, for instance, the act of voting without the qualifications provided by law, inheres in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof, the prosecution has the burden of proving the same. (Sec. 297, Act No. 190; U. S. v. Tria, 17 Phil., 303, 306, 307.) In view, however, of the difficult office of proving a negative allegation, the prosecution, under such circumstance, need do no more than make a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. (U. S. v. Tria, supra.) It would certainly be anomalous to hold." . . that mere difficulty in discharging a burden of making proof should displace it; and as a matter of principle the difficulty only relieves the party having the burden of evidence from the necessity of creating positive conviction entirely by his own evidence; so that, when he produces such evidence as it is in his power to produce, its probative effect is enhanced by the silence of his opponent." (22 C. J., pp. 81, 82.) The rule, however, is different when the subject of the negative averment does not constitute an assential element of the offense, but is purely a matter of defense. In such case, the burden of proof is upon the defendant. As to whether or not a negative agreement is a matter of defense, is a question which we have fully discussed in United States us. Chan Toco (12 Phil., 262).

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Section 770 of the Administration Code provides that "no person shall practice medicine in this Philippine Islands without having previously obtained the proper certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners . . ." This provision clearly includes the want of certificate as an essential element of the offense charged. The negative fact is not separable from the offense as defined. it is, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to proves that negative fact, and failure to prove it is a ground for acquittal. In the instant case, however, the decision rendered by the lower court makes mention of Exhibit F-2 as showing that the accused is not a registered physician. Furthermore, Exhibit H-3 is also mentioned in the decision of the lower court, which is a letter of the accused to the President of the Philippines, quoting approvingly an article published in this Philippines Herald, wherein it is said that F. Q. is not a holder of a doctor of medicine degree. These Exhibits, F-2 and H-3, are sufficient evidence to show that the accused has been practicing medicine without the required certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    In June, 1937, the provincial fiscal of Pangasinan filed an information against the accused, Fernando C. Quebral, for violation of section 770 of the Administrative Code. The pertinent portion of the information reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Que en o hacia y desde el ano de 1930 en adelante hasta el mes de mayo de 1937, inclusive, en los municipios de San Jacinto, Mapandan, Mangaldan y Dagupan, Provincia de Pangasinan, Filipinas, y dentro de y jurisdiccion de este Juzgado, el aeusado arriba nombrado voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente y sin haber obtenido previamente el certificado de registro correspondiente, expedido por la Junta Examinadora de Medicos, ejercio la medicina dentro de los terminos del articulo 770 del Codigo Administrativo Revisado, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    There is no question that the accused diagnosed, treated and prescribed for certain diseases suffered by certain patients, from whom he received money as compensation; but it is contended that no evidence has been adduced to the effect that the accused had thus practiced medicine "without having previously obtained the proper certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners," as provided in section 770 of the Administrative Code.

    As to this question, the lower court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "No hay cuestion alguna en cuanto al hecho de que 108 actos del acusado probados por la acusacion constituyen un ejercicio de la medicina. La unica cuestion, por tanto, a determinar es la de si o no incumbia a la acusacion probar que dicho acusado habia ejercido la profesion medica sin estar previamente registrado como tal medico.

    "Teniendo en cuenta lo dispuesto en el articulo 297 del Codigo de Procedimiento Civil y la doctrina enunciada por nuestra Honorable Corte Suprema en las causas Estados Unidos contra Gonzalez (10 Jur. Fil., 67); Estados Unidos contra Co Pinco (10 Jur. Fil., 370); Estados Unidos contra Tria (17 Jur. Fil., 304);y Estados Unidos contra De la Torre (42 Jur. Fil., 65), el Juzgado cree que no es necesario que la acusacion pruebe que el acusado no estaba previamente registrado como medico antes de ejercer la profesion medica, pues, si el acusado lo estaba, y funda su defensa en tal hecho, a el incumbe probarlo."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The accused was found guilty of the offense charged and was sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred pesos (100) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He appealed, and, in this court, he reiterates his contention that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that he practiced medicine without the proper certificate, and that there being no evidence to that effect, he should be acquitted.

    The rule is, and has always been, that, if the subject of the negative averment, like, for instance, the act of voting without the qualifications provided by law, inheres in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof, the prosecution has the burden of proving the same. (Sec. 297, Act No. 190; U. S. v. Tria, 17 Phil., 303, 306, 307.) In view, however, of the difficult office of proving a negative allegation, the prosecution, under such circumstance, need do no more than make a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. (U. S. v. Tria, supra.) It would certainly be anomalous to hold." . . that mere difficulty in discharging a burden of making proof should displace it; and as a matter of principle the difficulty only relieves the party having the burden of evidence from the necessity of creating positive conviction entirely by his own evidence; so that, when he produces such evidence as it is in his power to produce, its probative effect is enhanced by the silence of his opponent." (22 C. J., pp. 81, 82.)

    The rule, however, is different when the subject of the negative averment does not constitute an essential element of the offense, but is purely a matter of defense. In such case, the burden of proof is upon the defendant. As to whether or not a negative averment is a matter of defense, is a question which we have fully discussed in United States v. Chan Toco (12 Phil., 262).

    Section 770 of the Administrative Code provides that "no person shall practice medicine in the Philippine Islands without having previously obtained the proper certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners . . ." This provision clearly includes the want of certificate as an essential element of the offense charged. The negative fact is not separable from the offense as defined. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that negative fact, and failure to prove it is a ground for acquittal.

    In the instant case, however, the decision rendered by the lower court makes mention of Exhibit F-2 as showing that the accused is not a registered physician. That document is signed by Jose Ma. Delgado, chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners, wherein it is stated, in part, that "there is nothing in the records of this Board to show that Mr. Fernando C. Quebral is a registered physician." This document is admissible as evidence of its contents, under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, regarding Official written statements. "The certificate of a custodian that he has diligently searched for a document or an entry of a specified tenor and has been unable to find it ought to be usually as satisfactory for evidencing its non-existence in his office as his testimony on the stand to this effect would be." (3 Wigmore on Evidence, p. 561.) Furthermore, Exhibit H-3 is also mentioned in the decision of the lower court, which is a letter of the accused to the President of the Philippines, quoting approvingly an article published in the Philippines Herald, wherein it is said that Fernando Quebral is not a holder of a doctor of medicine degree. These Exhibits, F-2 and H-3, are sufficient evidence to show that the accused has been practicing medicine without the required certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners.

    Judgment is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46094   September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL<br /><br />068 Phil 564


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED