Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Rule 128 Rico Rommel Private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal 1. Whether the 1. No. The subject of the inquiry
Admissibility Atienza Medical Center to submit for a check up due to exhibits are in this case is whether the doctors
of evidence vs. her lumbar pains. Her diagnostic laboratory inadmissible are liable for gross negligence in
Board of Medicine test results revealed that her right kidney was evidence on the removing the right functioning
and Editha Sioson normal while her left kidney was non- ground that it kidney of Editha instead of the left
functioning and non-visualizing. Hence, she violates the best non-functioning kidney, not the
G.R. No. 177407 underwent kidney operation under the care of evidence rule. proper anatomical locations of
February 9. 2011 the four physicians namely: Dr. Judd dela Edithas kidneys. The proper
Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin III, Dr. Gerardo 2. Whether the anatomical locations of Edithas
Antonio and petitioner Dr. Rico Rommel exhibits are kidneys at the time of her operation
Atienza. inadmissible at the RMC may be established not
evidence on the only through the exhibits offered in
It was alleged in the complaint that the gross ground that they evidence.
negligence and/or incompetence committed by have not been
the said doctors, including petitioner, consists properly identified In fact, the introduction of
of the removal of private respondents fully and authenticated. secondary evidence is allowed.
functional right kidney, instead of the left non- Section 3, Rule 130 provides that
functioning and non-visualizing kidney. 3. Whether the when the subject of the inquiry is the
Private respondent filed a complaint against exhibits are contents of the document, no
the four doctors before the Board of inadmissible evidence shall be admissible other
Medicine. Private respondent therein offered evidence on the than the original document itself,
four certified photocopies of X-ray Requests as ground that it is except when the original has been
her documentary evidence to prove that her completely hearsay. lost or destroyed, or cannot be
kidneys were both in their proper anatomical produced in court without bad faith
locations at the time that she was operated. on the offeror. Since the original
documents cannot be produced
The Board of Medicine admitted the formal based on the testimony of Dr.
offer despite the objection of herein petitioner. Aquino BOM properly admitted
Petitioner contends that the documentary Edithas formal offer of evidence,
evidence offered were inadmissible as it were and thereafter, the BOM shall
incompetent. determine the probative value
Further, he alleged that the same documents thereof when it decides the case.
were not properly identified and authenticated,
violate the best evidence rule and his
substantive rights, and are completely hearsay. 2. No, the documentary
evidence were properly identified
and authenticated. The records show
that the exhibits offered by private
respondent were the same evidence
attached in Doctor Lantin's counter-
affidavit filed before the Office of
the City Prosecutor in answer to the
criminal complaint of the
respondent. To lay the predicate for
her case, private respondent offered
the exhibits in evidence to prove that
her kidneys were both in their proper
anatomical locations at the time of
her operation.
3. establishment of the
authenticity and correctness
of the recording;