V. Sotto Medical Surgery Spectacle

[mustrufnuthn]

---

one concrete example of outright questionable professionalism.

hey, everybody makes a mistake. nobody's perfect. so what if he hired a call boy?? so what if the call boy made fun of him??

you guys talk like you are all CLEAN and GOOD.

LOL

JAN-JAN merely sought medical help like any other patient. and again it's not a question of saving his life or not, it's a question of who deserves RESPECT.

the DOCTORS and NURSES got what they deserved.

he is the one who stepped forward and claimed he was the one in the video...

[chad_tukes]

he is the one who stepped forward and claimed he was the one in the video...

...because he was the one on the video. hospital bills can prove that. and this case would go nowhere if it wasn't him who's on the video, correct?

[mustrufnuthn]

...because he was the one on the video. hospital bills can prove that. and this case would go nowhere if it wasn't him who's on the video, correct?

how can the video prove that it was him?
how can the video prove that it was in vsmmc?
how can the video prove that it was the vsmmc's ?

[b|tcH_g0dd3sS]

the only person to be blame is the victim itself.. in the first place why did he hired a call boy? and also i really dont think that he hired one.. he just said to the public to lessen his kauwaw.. hehe I think he is the one who put the canester in his anus...

Not for anything else, this is a statement of discrimination and judgement.
So you now know how gay people think?

In the first place, not only gay people hire men/women prostitutes (or not).
To lessen his shame? What more could lessen the shame he was in?

[estor_boot]

one word for the bayot and the medical personnels involved;

MAYRA!

[thedreamer]

nanu na ni? updates of this?

[Master_Lampa]

how can the video prove that it was him?
how can the video prove that it was in vsmmc?
how can the video prove that it was the vsmmc's ?

this can be proven thru circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence...

RULE 133 OF Rules OF court provides:

Sec. 4.Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a)There is more than one circumstances;

(b)The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c)The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (5)

Sec. 5.Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

and since this only involves administrative case for obviously this is not criminal, it only needs a Substantial Evidence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.. in layman's term those party that could adduce more, believable, and relavant evidence will win.. as long as the scale of justice tilts on to them.


*but i would like to clarify that i am against the revocation of license of these medical practitioner.. suspension plus damages will do.. but the amount must be moderated or lessened..

in the case of SAMSON VS BPI

"Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused. Although incapable of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Moral damages are not punitive in nature and were never intended to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant.

There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts.12 Trial courts are given discretion in determining the amount, with the limitation that it "should not be palpably and scandalously excessive."13 Indeed, it must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered.

Moral damages are awarded to achieve a "spiritual status quo," thus:

"Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount. . . .."

The social standing of the aggrieved party is essential to the determination of the proper amount of the award. Otherwise, the goal of enabling him to obtain means, diversions, or amusements to restore him to the status quo ante would not be achieved."

so at this juncture, the defense counsel must established the spiritual status quo of Jan-jan in which i certainly doubt that the damages would cost 6 MILLION. :mrgreen:

Wherefore, a suspension of license will do and a mitigated amount of damages.. 1 million is decent and acceptable.

[fingolfin]

this can be proven thru circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence...

RULE 133 OF Rules OF court provides:

Sec. 4.Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a)There is more than one circumstances;

(b)The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c)The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (5)

Sec. 5.Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

and since this only involves administrative case for obviously this is not criminal, so it only needs a Substantial Evidence and not proof beyond reasonalbe doubt.. in layman's term those party that could adduce more, believable, and relavant evidence will win.. as long as the scale of justice tilts on to them.

.. yes, that would be the case, after some deep investigation. But as basing the video as the evidence, it ain't substantial.

[love2travel]

nanu na ni? updates of this?

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2008/05/06/news/.undue.injury.ombud.finding.html
Tuesday, May 06, 2008 (Philippines)
‘Undue injury’: ombud finding
By Karlon N. Rama Sun.Star Staff Reporter

THE Office of the Ombudsman wants fourteen people placed under formal criminal investigation for the controversial operation at the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center (VSMMC).

Among other findings, the ant-graft office will investigate the fourteen for causing undue injury, which is punishable by Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Twelve of the 14 individuals are directly connected with the hospital and are also being cited for administrative investigation for grave misconduct.

They will be investigated for possible misconduct, which is penalized by Republic Act 6713, the code of conduct for public officials and employees.

The remaining two others are clinical instructors with the University of the Southern Philippines (USP) and are excluded in the administrative probe because they aren’t government officials.

VSMMC, according to its media liaison committee, will discuss the results of the Ombudsman investigation as soon as they receive a copy of the findings.

The respondents are identified in the eight-page Final Evaluation Report (FER) that Associate Graft Investigator Elmer Gutierrez prepared. The report was approved by Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago yesterday.

While indicting more people than what the VSMMC investigating panel originally recommended, the FER is silent on the issues of whether the victim was raped.

It is also silent on who uploaded the video to YouTube.

The FER also does not treat the complainant’s subsequent claim for P6 million in damages.

Pursue case

With the findings, the patient said he will pursue the case against the medical team, said Basak-Pardo Barangay Captain Dave Tumulak.

Tumulak, who is helping the patient, said the patient is happy with the result of the ombudsman investigation.

“I was right. The results showed they are 70 percent in favor of the patient,� Tumulak said.

“The doctors and nurses above-mentioned failed to control the entry of people inside the OR (Operating Room),� read the FER.

It cited the doctors and nurses for failing to stop the students and others in using cameras and cell phones inside a place where sanitation should be strictly observed.

“They also failed to stop the laughing and cracking of jokes which are insulting in nature. Such conduct of the VSMMC doctors and nurses in the middle of the operation, too much jokes, laughter, use of videos, cameras and mobile phones, and unruly OR behavior could not just be ignored and let go as these caused embarrassment,� the report added.

Unbecoming

“Such acts really are unbecoming of public officials who belong to the medical profession, whose prime concern should have been the best interest of their patients. Their failure to observe this is discreditable and inexcusable,� it said.

Still, the only palpable violation committed, based on the FER, is causing undue injury, punishable by Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, as well as misconduct, penalized by Republic Act 6713.

There was also mention of negligence but this was not included in the dispositive portion of the report.

Impleaded for criminal investigation are Drs. Philipps Leo Arias, the surgeon in charge, Marlowe Parreno, the consultant of the Department of Surgery, Angelo Linawagan, the assistant surgeon, and Joseph Alfred de Leon, the one assigned in documenting the procedure.

Also included are Drs. Joanne Mae Merilles, the resident anesthesiologist, Serapio Salazar, the consultant of the Department of Anesthesiology, and Max Joseph Montecillo of the Department of Surgery.

The nurses, in turn, are Isabelita Remulta, the operating room nurse supervisor, Circulating Nurse Carmenia Sapio, OR Nurse Supervisor Consuelo Tecling, the nurse on call, Ida Sumayang, and Nursing Attendant Rosemarie Villareal.

The clinical instructors, meanwhile, are a certain A. Oplado and Ramon Penley “Monching� Pandaan.

Following the procedure at the anti-graft office, the FER becomes the formal letter-complaint upon which the impleaded officials will be investigated.

The FER will be docketed as a formal complaint and then assigned to a graft investigator for preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication.

If probable cause is found, a case will be filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). If not, the complaint is dismissed.

Sanctions

If the administrative proceedings find sufficient evidence, administrative sanctions - including reprimands and suspensions – will be imposed.

The anti-graft office took into consideration the answers that the implicated hospital officials gave to the panel the VSMMC created when it initially investigated the incident.

Among the doctors, Arias and Linawaga admitted that there were too many people in the OR when the extraction took place but maintained that they had no control over the matter as they were so focused on the procedure.

Montecillo, for his part, admitted he was one of those in the OR at that time and said “(he) could not help but react to the way my colleagues handled the operation.�

“Several times I smiled and laughed (at their side comments and jokes) but I never said a word or did anything than to continue my observation and to document what transpired.�

It was Dr. de Leon who was authorized to take videos of the procedure.

Among the nurses, Villareal and Sapio said they simply couldn’t control the crowd.(With a report from NRC)

[Master_Lampa]

.. yes, that would be the case, after some deep investigation. But as basing the video as the evidence, it ain't substantial.

yeah video alone is not substantial and by the way it is the JuDGE who will determine this in the exercise of their vast discretion and not me or even YOu.. but the judge who acquires jurisdiction of the case. We can even do nothing if the judge will rule that such video is substatial enough for there is a ruling also that states that a victim of humiliation (e.g. rape, and by analogy also applies in this case) when testifies says all what it purported to be for no one in his/her right mind that would self-embarrassed himself.
That is why there is a need to corroborate other evidence aside from the video e.g. hospital record, xray, doctors prescription that closely coincide with the date of the occurence, testimonial evidence and so on and so forth...