Medical Jurisprudence Case

People of the Philippines v. Guillermo I. Ventura

GR No. L-15079
January 31, 1962

This is an appeal from conviction of defendant-appellant for illegal practice of medicine. This
being his second conviction, the sentence is to pay a fine of P500.00 and subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay costs.

Facts:
In 1949, accused was convicted for illegal practice of medicine and sentenced to pay a fine of
P200. Sometime thereafter, he set up shop again to continue the lucrative business.

In 1955, NBI received a complaint from the President of Philippine Federation of Private
Medical Practitioners and the Chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners.

When NBI investigated and confirmed through a raid that defendant diagnoses, treats and
prescribes human ailments, imagined or otherwise.

Issues:
Whether or not Ventura’s arguments, questioning conviction by the trial court, are valid:
1. Offense charged has already prescribed
2. Laws involved are unconstitutional
3. Acts committed does not constitute the practice of medicine
4. Government is estopped from prosecuting him as the state induced him to engage in
subject acts
5. His practice of physiotherapy by massage through physical devices fall upon the
physiotherapy recognized under the law.

Ruling:
1. Prescription: No.

4-year period of prescription of the offense charged is counted from date of discovery.
Complaint by the President of the Philippine Federation of Private Medical Practitioners to the
NBI was 1955. Prosecution instituted 1956. Hence, the prescription period should be
computed from 1955 – when the National Bureau of Investigation discovered appellant’s
alleged illegal practice of Medicine.

2. Unconstitutional: No.

As held in People v. Buenviaje, it is within the Police Power of the State to require that persons
who devote themselves to the curing of human ills should possess thorough knowledge
necessary for the proper diagnosis of diseases of the human body.
The State may prescribe such regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure the
general welfare of the people, to protect them against the consequences of ignorance and
incapacity as well as deception and fraud.

3. Acts not practice of medicine: No.

The statutory definition in the law (Revised Administrative Code) in no uncertain terms covers
appellant’s acts. By his own statements, Ventura admitted to have continuously diagnosed and
treated more or less 500,0000 instances of different kinds of human ailments nad to have
prescribed remedies therefor.

4. State estopped: No.

Doctrine of Estoppel does not apply to the government (Republic v. Go Bon Lee). It is never
estopped by mistakes or errors on the part of its agents. The bargaining away of public health
and safety for the semblance of benefit to a few cannot be allowed.

5. Physiotherapy: No.

Above argument has no merit because there is strong evidence to the effect that appellant
alone diagnoses his patients’ ailments and applies the remedies therefor without written order
or prescription by a registered physician.

Wherefore, decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant.

-#-