Case digests on medical jurisprudence

  • Published on
    19-Feb-2018

  • View
    220

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • 7/23/2019 Case digests on medical jurisprudence

    1/11

    PEOPLE vs. MOISES

    Moises brothers were convicted with murder for the killing of Jose Solaria.

    A!OPS" #I$%I$&S !estimon' of %r. Ananias (amos)who *erformed the auto*s'+

    ,. Lacerated wound on the headat the verte- inches long.!he *arietal bones fracturedat its /unction.

    located on to* of the victim0shead could have been *ossibl'caused b' a blunt instrumentsuch as a stone

    #atal

    1. Incised wound below the leftear2 from the angle of the leftlower /aw to the middle ofthe neck. !wo thirds of theneck was cut.

    located under the victim0s left earrunning to the middle of the backneck2 almost severing the neck

    was *robabl' caused b' a bolo

    #atal

    . Incised wound on the backbetween the two sca*ulas onthe level of the third rib2 3inches long and involved theskin and subcutaneous

    tissues.

    located at the victim0s back wascaused b' a shar*4bladedinstrument

    $ot fatal

    5. 6ullet wound entrance on theback on the medial border ofthe sca*ula on the level of the3thinters*ace2 right2 with adiameter of about .53 of aninch. !here is no visible*owder burn.

    bullet wound located at themiddle of the right *ortion of the

    victim0s back was without an'e-it wound

    #atal

    3. Similar bullet woundentrance on the neck2 leftside of the sagittal line on thelevel of the rdcervical

    vertebrae coming out in front

    beside thesternocleidomastoid muscleon its lateral side about itsmid *ortion.

    bullet wound located at the backof the victim0s neck e-ited belowthe left ear

    #atal

    7. Similar bullet woundentrance on the back at theti* of the inferior angle of theleft sca*ula coming out infront on the level of the ninthrib on the *osterior a-illar'line2 right.

    bullet wound located at the lowerright *ortion of the right breast

    #atal

    8. A bullet wound entrancesimilar to the rest of the

    bullet wounds in front on theanterior a-illar' line2 right2level of the 9thrib coming outon the bank on the *osteriora-illar' line2 left2 on the levelof the ninth rib.

    bullet wound located below thevictim0s right ni**le e-ited

    through the left lower *ortion ofthe back

    #atal

    :ASE O# %EA!;< Shock due to *rofuse internal and e-ternal hemorrhages secondar' to gunshot andincise wounds.:O$:LSIO$< =hich in/uries resulted in the death of Jose Soloria instantaneousl' thereafter

  • 7/23/2019 Case digests on medical jurisprudence

    2/11

    Peo*le vs. %eang

    %eang2 Es*iritu and :atli were convicted of kidna**ing for ransom with homicide. >ictim is Ja'4Ja'!anhueco. !he bo'?s bod' was found in Sitio @a'nalawit2 6aranga' %a'a*2 Laurel2 6atangas along the!aga'ta' ridge below a ravine ,3 to meters from the road.

    !he *ost4mortem e-amination of the cadaver revealed the cause of death as followsI:!IM %A!A< An unidentified male dead *erson2 around ,5 to ,3 'ears old2 wearing &iordano whiteshirt2 black *ants2 &amosa shoes

    PLA:E O# I$:I%E$:E< Sitio @a'nalawit2 6aranga' %a'a* Itaas2 Laurel2 6atangas

    $A!(E O# I$:I%E$:E< Mauling

    PLA:E %A!E A$% !IME O# A!OPS"< Police station2 Laurel2 6atangas at about B

  • 7/23/2019 Case digests on medical jurisprudence

    3/11

    MA(:IA$O vs. SA$ JOSE

  • 7/23/2019 Case digests on medical jurisprudence

    4/11

    :;I MI$& !SOI vs. :A and &I$A LAO4!SOI

    :ase for declaration of nullit' of marriage filed b' wife &ina against her husband

    %efendant submitted himself to a *h'sical e-amination. ;is *enis was e-amined b' %r. Sergio AlteDa2 Jr.2for the *ur*ose of finding out whether he is im*otent. As a result threrof2 %r. AlteDa submitted his%octor?s Medical (e*ort and it is stated there that there is no evidence of im*otenc' and he is ca*able oferection.

    !he doctor said2 that he asked the defendant to masturbate to find out whether or not he has an erectionand he found out that from the original siDe of two )1+ inches2 or five )3+ centimeters2 the *enis of thedefendant lengthened b' one ),+ inch and one centimetre. %r. AlteDa said that the defendant had onl' asoft erection which is wh' his *enis is not in its full length. 6ut2 still is ca*able of further erection2 in that

    with his soft erection2 the defendant is capable of having sexual intercoursewith a woman.

    S: declared the marriage void.

    !he issue of whether or not the husband is *s'chologicall' inca*acitated to discharge a basic maritalobligation was resolved u*on a review of both the documentar' and testimonial evidence on record.;usband admitted that he did not have se-ual relations with his wife after almost , months of

    cohabitation2 and it a**ears that he is not suffering from an' *h'sical disabilit'. Such abnormalreluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongl' indicative of a serious *ersonalit'disorder which clearl' demonstrates an utter insensitivit' or inabilit' to give meaning and significance tothe marriage? within the meaning of Article 7 of the #amil' :ode.

  • 7/23/2019 Case digests on medical jurisprudence

    5/11

    JIME$EF vs. :AGIFA(ES

    Joel JimeneD *ra'ed for a decree annulling his marriage to (emedios :aniDares u*on the ground that theorifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the *enetration of a male organ or *enis forco*ulation.

    !: ordered (emedios to submit to *h'sical e-amination b' a com*etent lad' *h'sician to determine her*h'sical ca*acit' for co*ulation and to submit a medical certificate on the result thereof. (emedios didnot com*l' with the order. !: annulled the marriage.

    S: held that the marriage ma' not be annulled on the strength onl' of the lone testimon' of the husbandwho claimed and testified that his wife was and is im*otent and remanded the case.

    =hether the wife is reall' im*otent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactoril' established2 becausefrom the commencement of the *roceedings until the entr' of the decree she had abstained from taking*art therein. Although her refusal to be e-amined or failure to a**ear in court show indifference on her*art2 'et from such attitude the *resum*tion arising out of the su**ression of evidence could not arise or

    be inferred because women of this countr' are b' nature co'2 bashful and sh' and would not submit to a*h'sical e-amination unless com*elled to b' com*etent authorit'.

    !his the :ourt ma' do without doing violence to and infringing in this case is not self4incrimination. Sheis not charged with an' offense. She is not being com*elled to be a witness against herself. HIm*otenc'

    being an abnormal condition should not be *resumed. !he *resum*tion is in favor of *otenc'.H !he lonetestimon' of the husband that his wife is *h'sicall' inca*able of se-ual intercourse is insufficient to tearasunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and wife.

  • 7/23/2019 Case digests on medical jurisprudence

    6/11

    6A::A" vs. 6A::A"

    $oel and Maribel were schoolmates in college. After 'ears of courting2 the' became sweethearts. $oelconsidered Maribel as the snobbish and hard4to4get t'*e2 which traits he found attractive.

    $oel observed that Maribel was inordinatel' sh' when around his famil' so to bring her closer to them2 healwa's invited Maribel to attend famil' gatherings. She2 however2 would tr' to avoid his invitations and

    whenever she attended those occasions with $oel?s famil'2 he observed that AMribel was invariabl' aloofor snobbish. $ot once did she tr' to get close to an' of his famil' members. $oel would talk to Maribelabout her attitude towards his famil' and she would *romise to change2 but she never did.

    $oel decided to break u* with Maribel because he was alread' involved with another woman. ;e tried tobreak u* with Maribel2 but Maribel refused and offered to acce*t $oel?s relationshi* with the otherwoman so long as the' would not sever their ties. !o give Maribel some time to get over their relationshi*2the' still continued to see each other albeit on a friendl' basis. %es*ite their efforts to kee* their meetingsstrictl' friendl'2 however2 $oel and Maribel had several romantic moments together. $oel took thesee*isodes of se-ual contact casuall' since Maribel never demanded an'thing from him e-ce*t his com*an'.!hen2 sometime in $ovember ,BB92 Maribel informed $oel that she was *regnant with his child. *onadvice of his mother2 $oel grudgingl' agreed to marr' Maribel.

    After the marriage ceremon'2 $oel and Maribel agreed to live with $oel?s famil' in their house at (osal2Pag4asa2 ueDon :it'. %uring all the time she lived with $oel?s famil'2 Maribel remained aloof and did notgo out of her wa' to endear herself to them. She would /ust come and go from the house as she *leased.Maribel never contributed to the famil'?s coffer leaving $oel to shoulder all e-*enses for their su**ort.

    Also2 she refused to have an' se-ual contact with $oel.

    Sur*risingl'2 des*ite Maribel?s claim of being *regnant2 $oel never observed an' s'm*toms of *regnanc'in her. ;e asked Maribel?s office mates whether she manifested an' signs of *regnanc' and the'confirmed that she showed no such signs. !hen2 sometime in Januar' ,BBB2 Maribel did not go home for ada'2 and when she came home she announced to $oel and his famil' that she had a miscarriage and wasconfined at the :hinese &eneral ;os*ital where her sister worked as a nurse.

    $oel sought to have their marriage annulled. (!: granted $oel?s *etition for declaration of nullit'2 u*on

    finding that Maribel failed to *erform the essential marital obligations of marriage2 and such failure wasdue to a *ersonalit' disorder called $arcissistic Personalit' %isorder characteriDed b' /uridicalantecedence2 gravit' and incurabilit' as determined b' a clinical *s'chologist. !he (!: cited the findingsof $ed' L. !a'ag2 a clinical *s'chologist *resented as witness b' $oel2 that Maribel was a ver' insecure*erson. She entered into the marriage not because of emotional desire for marriage but to *rovesomething2 and her attitude was e-*loitative *articularl' in terms of financial rewards. She wasemotionall' immature2 and viewed marriage as a *iece of *a*er and that she can easil' get rid of herhusband without an' *rovocation.

    :A and S: reversed and refused to grant the *etition.

    In this case2 the totalit' of evidence *resented b' $oel was not sufficient to sustain a finding that Maribelwas *s'chologicall' inca*acitated. $oel?s evidence merel' established that Maribel refused to have se-ualintercourse with him after their marriage2 and that she left him after their uarrel when he confronted her

    about her alleged miscarriage. ;e failed to *rove the root cause of the alleged *s'chological inca*acit'and establish the reuirements of gravit'2 /uridical antecedence2 and incurabilit'. As correctl' observed

    b' the :A2 the re*ort of the *s'chologist2 who concluded that Maribel was suffering from $arcissisticPersonalit' %isorder traceable to her e-*eriences during childhood2 did not establish how the *ersonalit'disorder inca*acitated Maribel from validl' assuming the essential obligations of the marriage. Indeed2the same *s'chologist even testified that Maribel was ca*able of entering into a marriage e-ce*t that it

    would be difficult for her to sustain one. Mere difficult'2 it must be stressed2 is not the inca*acit'contem*lated b' law.

  • 7/23/2019 Case digests on medical jurisprudence

    7/11

    PEOPLE vs. ME%I$A

    Marciano Medina was convicted of robber' for breaking into the house of James (ockwell and taking 1watches.

    Investigation revealed that a silver bo-2 which had been taken from the room of Mrs. (ockwell on thenight of the robber'2 was found in the garden the ne-t morning and that when it was e-amined I theIntelligence %ivision of the :onstabular'2 it showed a finger *rint on the to*.

    Agri*ino (uiD2 a :onstabular' agent and finger *rint e-*ert2 took the finger *rints of the accused andcom*ared them with his records )accused had served terms in 6ilibid *rison for theft+. (uiD thencom*ared a *hotogra*h of the finger *rint on the to* of the silver bo- stolen from the bedroom of Mrs.(ockwell and found that the' coincided in ten ),+ *oints. ;e concluded that the 1 im*ressions were fromthe same *erson2 and that the finger *rint on the bo- was that of Medina.

    Evidence was to the corres*ondence of finger *rints is admissible for the *ur*ose of *roving identit'.

    !he histor' of the finger *rint s'stem of identification is stated in the one of the leading cases2 Peo*le vs.Sallow