DR. BENIGNO A. AGBAYANI,
JR. V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 215121
June 23, 2021
FACTS:
Dr. Agbayani was charged before the MeTC with reckless
imprudence resulting ln serious physical injuries in an Information that reads:
On or about January 5, 2006. in
the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused, being then the surgeon and/or orthopoedist of complainant
Saul Q- Hofilena, Jr., did then and there voluntarily but without malice, conduct an
arthroscopy upon said complainant in a reckless
manner by using a medical instrument (arthroscope) that
was not sterilized without taking the necessary precaution to
avoid injury to said complainant, taking into consideration his employment or occupation and degree of
intelligence, causing as a consequence of his said carelessness, recklessness, negligence, imprudence
and lack of precaution the said complainant to suffer serious physical injuries
on his left knee which rendered him incapacitated
for work and/or labor for
more than thirty (30) days and in fact said complainant had undergone another
operation at St. Luke's Hospital, Quezon City on his left knee to remove the
infection introduced by the accused and subsequent operation on his right
wrist as a result of
walking with a care for a prolonged period of time, to the damage
and prejudice of said Saul Q. Hofilena. Jr.
Dr. Agbayani pleaded
not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued.
The MeTC rendered its Decision
finding
Dr.
Agbayani guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries.
Petitioner appealed
before the RTC on September 3, 2013. Thereafter,
on October 11, 2013, the RTC ordered him
to file a memorandum or appeal as per Section 7(b),
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The October 11, 2013 Order was received by petitioner on November
19, 2013. Thus, petitioner had until December 4, 2013
within which to file his appeal memorandum. However, instead
of filing his appeal
memorandum, he filed a motion asking for an extension of 15 days
which was granted by the RTC in its December
16, 2013 Order. Hence, petitioner had until December
19, 2013 within which to file his appeal memorandum.
However, he failed to do so.
The RTC dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to file an appeal
memorandum within the reglementary period.
The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit hence,
this Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion and erred in
dismissing the appeal (a) for failure to attach all the pleadings and documents
pertinent to the petition (b) upholding RTC’s dismissal of his appeal for
failure to file the appeal memorandum within the period of extension originally
granted and (c) in failing to consider and reverse MeTC’s erroneous conviction of
petitioner for Reckless Imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that the appellate
court committed no reversible error when it dismissed outright
petitioner's appeal for lack of merit.
(a) The SC ruled that Agbayani's Petition
for Review before the appellate court lacked material
portions of the record that would support his
allegations in the petition. The SC cited the case of Barcenas
vs Spouses Tomas, where it declared that petitioners are
required by the Rules or Court to provide the appellate
court with certified true copies
or the judgments or final order subject of review,
as well as the material portions
of the record.
(b) As regards petitioner's failure to timely submit his appeal
memorandum before the RTC, Section 7(b), Rule 40 of
the Rules of Court explicitly states that
failure of the appellant to file a memorandum within 15
days from filing a notice of appeal shall be a ground
for the dismissal or such appeal.
The SC cited its ruling in the case of Enriquez v. CA viz.:
Rule 40, Section 7 (b) provides
that, "it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit
a memorandum" and failure to do so "shall be
a ground for dismissal of the appeal." The use of the
word "shall" in a statue or rule expresses what
is mandatory and compulsory. Further. the
Rule imposes upon an appellant the "duty" to submit his memorandum.
Thus, under the express mandate of said Rule, the appellate is duty-bound
to submit his memorandum on appeal. Such submission is not a matter of
discretion on his part. His failure to comply with this mandate or to
perform said duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal.
A perusal of the records reveal that petitioner
was granted an extension of 15 days or until December
19, 2013 within which to file his appeal
memorandum. However, instead
of submitting his memorandum, petitioner
filed two more motions for extension with the expectation
that the same would be granted by the RTC.
Petitioner should not expect that his motions for extension would
be granted much less for the period sought for.
His counsel's excuse of "heavy workload" does not persuade. It bears
stressing
that petitioner had 15 days to file a notice of appeal, another 15 days
to file a memorandum from such notice and an extension of 15 days to file the
said memorandum. In sum, petitioner had
45 days to prepare his appeal
memorandum which is more than sufficient for his counsel
to complete the drafting, printing, proofreading
and filing of his memorandum.
The SC stressed that an appeal is a statutory right and the
party who intends to appeal must comply with the rules and
procedures governing appeals, otherwise, the right to appeal may
be lost.
(c)On the issue of the non-sterilization of the arthroscope,
the SC stressed the well settled rule that in a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the
Court only dwells on questions of law and not questions of facts.
The SC held that the sterilization or non
sterilization of the arthroscope is a question
of fact as it involved a review of
the probative value of the evidence presented before
and considered by the MeTC. Besides, petitioner
had the opportunity to raise factual issues before
the RTC and CA. However, he failed to take
advantage of the opportunity
when he unjustifiably and unmeritoriously
failed to submit an appeal memorandum.
The SC deemed it necessary however to modify the penalty imposed by the MeTC
considering the circumstances of this case and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. The SC sentenced Dr. Benigno A.
Agbayani, Jr. to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of one (1) month and one (I) day of
arresto mayor, as
minimum, to one (1) year and one (l) day of
prision coreccional, as
maximum.
link to → FULL TEXT
0 yorum:
Post a Comment
Thank you so much for visiting. God bless you and your family always.