G.R. No. 86890. January 21, 1994.

LEANDRO CARILLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Remedial Law; Appeal; Rule is settled that only questions of law may be raised before the Court in a
petition for review on certiorari subject to certain well-known exceptions.—The rule is too firmly
settled to require much documentation that only questions of law may be raised before this Court in
a petition for review on certiorari, subject to certain well-known exceptions. After careful scrutiny of
petitioner’s contentions before us and the record of this case, we do not believe that petitioner has
shown “misapprehension of facts” on the part of the Court of Appeals which would require this
Court to overturn the judgment reached by the former.

Same; Same; Evidence; The medical evidence presented at the trial was quite consistent with the
findings of the Court of Appeals which concluded that cardiac arrest was the cause of Catherine’s
death.—The Court of Appeals found that an overdose of, or an adverse reaction to, Nubain, an
anaesthetic or pain-killing drug the appropriate dose of which depends on the body weight or mass
of the patient, had generated or triggered off cardiac arrest, which in turn led to lack of oxygen in
Catherine’s brain, which then brought about hemorrhaging in the brain. Vital activity in the brain
thereupon ceased. The medical evidence presented at the trial was quite consistent with the
findings of the Court of Appeals which concluded that cardiac arrest was the cause of Catherine’s
death.

Criminal Law; Negligence; Petitioner should serve the interest of his patient with the greatest of
solicitude giving them always his best talent and skill.—Once summoned, petitioner
anaesthesiologist could not be readily found. When he finally appeared at 10:30 in the evening, he
was evidently in a bad temper, commenting critically on the dextrose bottles before ordering their
removal. This circumstance indicated he was not disposed to attend to this unexpected call, in
violation of the canons of his profession that as a physician, he should serve the interest of his
patient “with the greatest of solicitude, giving them always his best talent and skill.”

Same; Same; Same; A physician is required to attend to his patients faithfully and conscientiously.—
The canons of medical ethics require a physician to “attend to his patients faithfully and
conscientiously.” He should secure for them all possible benefits that may depend upon his
professional skill and care. As the sole tribunal to adjudge the physician’s failure to fulfill his
obligation to his patient is, in most cases, his own conscience, violation of this rule on his part is
“discreditable and inexcusable.”

Same; Same; Simple negligence is defined as a mere lack of prevision in a situation where either the
threatened harm is not immediate or the danger not openly visible.—As early as in People v. Vistan,
the Court defined simple negligence, penalized under what is now Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code, as “a mere lack of prevision in a situation where either the threatened harm is not immediate
or the danger not openly visible.” Put in a slightly different way, the gravamen of the offense of
simple negligence is the failure to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by the situation
which was not immediately life-destructive but which culminated, in the present case, in the death
of a human being three (3) days later. Such failure to exercise the necessary degree of care and
diligence is a negative ingredient of the offense charged. Carillo vs. People, 229 SCRA 386, G.R. No.
86890 January 21, 1994