Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15079 January 31, 1962
TE PEOPLE O! TE P"L"PP"NES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GU"LLERMO ". #ENTUR$, defendant-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Claro M. Recto for defendant-appellant.
%ENG&ON, C.J.:
Statement. This is an appeal fro the decision of the Court of !irst "nstance of Ri#al findin$
%uillero ". &entura $uilt' of ille$al practice of edicine under (ection ))* in connection +ith
(ection ,-). of the Revised Adinistrative Code, and sentencin$ hi, this bein$ his second
offense, to pa' a fine in the su of P/**.**, +ith the correspondin$ subsidiar' iprisonent in case
of insolvenc' and to pa' costs.
Appellant, the accused, +as char$ed +ith the above offense in an inforation +hich alle$ed that in
!ebruar', 01//, he did, .
2+illfull', unla+full' and feloniousl', and for copensation and re+ard, practice edicine in
the said Cit' 3Pasa'4 b' treatin$ and appl'in$ electrical appliances to patients for the
purpose of curin$ the +ith their ailents, diseases, pains, and ph'sical defects fro +hich
the' are sufferin$ and b' holdin$ out hiself to the public b' eans of si$ns,
advertiseents, and other eans, to be a 5octor of Medicine.2
Facts. lo+er court found, as facts, the follo+in$6
2... in the 'ear 0171, the accused herein, %uillero ". &entura, +as convicted b' the court of
first instance of Ri#al of a 8siilar offense8 or ille$al practice of edicine in the unicipalit' of
Pasa', no+ Pasa' Cit' and sentenced to pa' a fine of P,**.** under the sae le$al
provisions, or (ection ))* in connection +ith (ection ,-). of the Revised Adinistrative
Code.
2... b' reason of certain coplaints the National Bureau of "nvesti$ation had received fro
the President of the Philippine !ederation of Private Medical Practitioners and fro the
Chairan of the Board of Medical E9ainers, the National Bureau of "nvesti$ation on
5eceber 0-, 01//, sent its or$ue attendant :ose Nata'an to the clinic of the accused at
No. ,7/7 M. de la Cru# (treet, Pasa' Cit'. Nata'an +as at that tie sufferin$ fro pains in
his bac; and he as;ed the accused to see his sic;ness. The accused attended to Nata'an<
+rote soethin$ on a piece of paper< and then he told hi that he 3Nata'an4 8+as sic; of
luba$o8. Thereupon, the accused as;ed Nata'an to pa' P/.** and then as;ed hi to pa'
the aount to a lad' eplo'ee in the clinic +hich Nata'an did. At the re=uest of the
accused, Nata'an, then +ent around the other side of the clinic +here he +as $iven an
enea of hot +ater b' a ale attendant. Then Nata'an +as as;ed to lie do+n on a table
+here his bac; +as e9posed to a bi$ bulb for around fifteen inutes and after+ards to a red
colored bulb for another ten inutes. Thereafter Nata'an +ent bac; to the accused, +ho told
hi to coe bac; to his clinic for si9 consecutive da's. After that Nata'an +ent bac; on the
sae da' or 5eceber 0-, 01// to his office in the National Bureau of "nvesti$ation.
The follo+in$ da', Nata'an returned to the clinic of the accused +ith the National Bureau of
"nvesti$ation raidin$ part' coposed of t+o a$ents, t+o attorne's and one photo$rapher.
After he +as dropped b' the National Bureau of "nvesti$ation a$ents about seven eters
a+a' fro the clinic of the accused, Nata'an proceeded to the office of the accused, +ho
then and there told hi that another treatent +ould be applied to hi and that he +ould
pa' P>.**. After pa'in$ this aount and +hile Nata'an +as l'in$ on a table about to be
$iven treatent the National Bureau of "nvesti$ation a$ents raided the place.
The accused herein, %uillero ". &entura, is not a dul' re$istered asseur or a ph'sician
=ualified to practice edicine.
Issues. Appellant see;s a reversal here of aforeentioned ?ud$ent of conviction on the $rounds6
304 that the offense char$ed in the inforation had alread' prescribed< 3,4 that the la+s involved are
unconstitutional and void< 3>4 that $rantin$ that the said la+s are valid, the accused should not have
been prosecuted thereunder because he +as not en$a$ed in the practice of edicine< 374 that
Con$ress, in passin$ @ouse Bills Nos. ,7*/ and >/) reco$ni#ed and believed in the efficac' of the
dru$less s'stes of healin$ and althou$h said bills +ere vetoed b' the President of the Philippines
and thereb' did not becoe re$ular statutes, the' a' be considered as concurrent resolutions
forall' establishin$ the dru$less s'ste of healin$ as a separate and distinct profession, not
covered b' (ection ))* of the Medical Aa+< 3/4 that the coplainants and the %overnent are
estopped fro prosecutin$ the accused under (ection ))* because the' +ere the ones +ho
induced hi to practice dru$less healin$ after his conviction in 0171< and 3-4 that the accused has
an iplied license to practice dru$less healin$ fro the people of the Philippines and the Chairan
of the Medical Board of E9ainers.
Discussion. Appellant, testif'in$ on his behalf aditted that for the past >/ 'ears, he had been
practicin$ as a naturopathic ph'sician, 2treatin$ huan ailents +ithout the use of dru$s and
edicines2 and eplo'in$ in his practice 2electricit', +ater and hand2 +ithout a license to practice
edicine< that durin$ this tie he had treated /**,*** patients, ore or less about 1*B of +ho
+ere healed, and that he had studied dru$less healin$ in the Aerican Cniversit', Chica$o, "llinois
for about four 'ears.
"nvo;in$ prescription, he ar$ues that in vie+ of the fact that he had be$un the alle$ed practice of
edicine thirt' five 'ears a$o +ithout the re=uired license, the crie char$ed in the inforation had
alread' prescribed.
0
The records reveal that the accused be$an practicin$ his ethod of dru$less healin$ >/ 'ears a$o.
This practice +as first discovered b' the authorities in 0171. @e +as prosecuted and convicted
therefor the sae 'ear. (oetie after he a$ain set up a clinic. @e had a lucrative clientele and
nobod' bothered hi.1wph1.!"t
@o+ever, at about !ebruar', 01//, the President of the Philippine !ederation of Private Medical
Practitioners, coplained to the National Bureau of "nvesti$ation that appellant +as advertisin$
hiself as capable of treatin$ huan ailents +ithout dru$s. Cpon investi$ation, appellant +as
found to be +ithout certificate of re$istration to practice such profession either fro the Board of
Medical E9ainers or fro the Coittee of E9ainers of Masseurs. (o, this prosecution started in
01/-. "t is clear that the four-'ear period of prescription of the offense char$ed should be coputed
fro !ebruar', 01// +hen the National Bureau of "nvesti$ation discovered appellant8s alle$ed ille$al
practice of Medicine.
Appellant also =uestions the constitutionalit' of (ection ))* in relation to (ection ))/ of the Revised
Adinistrative Code. "t is appellant8s theor' that to re=uire, of an' person +hose business is erel'
to stiulate b' echanical eans the nerves of the bod', an' 'ears of stud' in edical schools,
ta;in$ up obstetrics, $eneral sur$er', $'necolo$', bacteriolo$' and an' other sciences, is
curtailent of the e9ercise of one8s callin$, a violation of the constitutional principle that all en have
the ri$ht to life, libert', and the pursuit of happiness and are entitled to the e=ual protection of the
la+. "t is furtherore theori#ed that inasuch as dru$less healin$ is not tau$ht in an' of the edical
schools prescribed, ho+ could the ebers of the Medical Board of E9ainers pass on the
copetence of these dru$less healersD .
This sae contention +as presented to and settled b' this Court in the case of #eople $s.
%uen$ia&e +ho +as convicted of ille$al practice of edicine for practicin$ chiropractor.
,
"t held6
There is ver' little force in this ar$uent. The sub?ects in +hich an e9aination is re=uired
relate to atters of +hich a thorou$h ;no+led$e sees necessar' for the proper dia$nosis
of diseases of the huan bod' and it is +ithin the police po+er of the (tate to re=uire that
persons +ho devote theselves to the curin$ of huan ills should possess such ;no+led$e.
"n the instant case, +e ust a$ain uphold these iutable concepts of the police po+er of the
(tate. Cnder this po+er, the (tate a' prescribe such re$ulations as in its ?ud$ent +ill secure or
tend to secure the $eneral +elfare of the people, to protect the a$ainst the conse=uences of
i$norance and incapacit' as +ell as of deception and fraud. As one eans to this end, it has been
the practice of different (tates, fro tie ieorial to e9act in an' pursuit, profession or trade, a
certain de$ree of s;ill and learnin$ upon +hich the counit' a' confidentl' rel', their possession
bein$ $enerall' ascertained in an e9aination of parties b' copetent persons, or inferred fro a
certificate to the in the for of a diploa or license fro an institution established for instruction on
the sub?ects, scientific or other+ise, +ith +hich such pursuits have to deal.
>
Appellant clais that his act of stiulatin$ the affected nerves of the patients +ithout use of an' dru$
or edicine is not practice of edicine< that 2practice of edicine2 is confined onl' to the s'stes
tau$ht b' the edical schools, nael', the re$ular, the hoeopathic and the eclectic schools or
s'stes.
(ection ))* of the Revised Adinistrative Code in no uncertain ters covers appellant8s acts. The
statutor' definition as to +hat acts constitute ille$al practice of edicine its provided in said (ection
))* includes the acts and practices perfored b' appellant, B' his o+n stateents, he aditted to
have continuousl' dia$nosed and treated ore or less /**,*** instances of different ;inds of huan
ailents and to have prescribed reedies therefor.
As re$ards the contention that there are at least t+o concurrent resolutions declarin$ forall' that
Con$ress has reco$ni#ed the dru$less ethods of healin$, +e need not elaborate further than to
sa' that not until such reco$nition is actuall' ebodied in a statute, shall +e e9tend consideration of
such ethod.
Appellant pleads that the lo+er court erred in not holdin$ that the coplainants and the $overnent
are estopped fro prosecutin$ hi because the' +ere the ones +ho induced hi to practice
dru$less healin$ after his conviction in 0171. @e tried to sho+ that edical practitioners, ebers of
Con$ress, provincial $overnors, cit' a'ors and unicipal board ebers +rote to hi re=uestin$
his help for persons sufferin$ fro all ;inds of ailents< that unicipal ordinances and resolutions
+ere also passed authori#in$ hi not onl' to practice his ethod of healin$ but also to put up clinics
in soe of unicipalities< that he +as even e9tended free transportation facilities to +or; in the
Central Au#on (anitariu in Tala, Caloocan, Ri#al.
Above plea cannot be sustained b' this Court. The doctrine of estoppel does not appl' to the
$overnent.
7
"t is never stopped b' ista;es or errors on the part of its a$ents, even assuin$
+ithout concedin$ that said unicipalities had encoura$ed appellant8s practice. Ee cannot allo+ the
bar$ainin$ a+a' of public health and safet' for the seblance of benefit to a fe+ $overnent
officials, people or even unicipalities.
(iilarl', there is no such thin$ as iplied license to practice dru$less healin$ b' the ere fact that
the Chairan of the Board of Medical E9ainers had peritted appellant to serve free in the Central
Au#on (anitariu in Tala, Caloocan, Ri#al, or that countless people persisted in en$a$in$ his
services. !or one thin$, these people i$ht have contracted his services on the ista;en notion that
he +as dul' licensed to practice his profession< for another, a repetition of ille$al acts can never
a;e the le$al.
As additional ar$uent, appellant ur$es ac=uittal under the ne+ Medical Act of 01/1
/
+herein the
practice of ph'siotherap' is reco$ni#ed as a distinct science. @e clais covera$e of said la+ on the
$round that he practices ph'siotherap' b' assa$e throu$h ph'sical devices and upon the
recoendation of dul' re$istered ph'sicians.
The above ar$uent has no erit because there is stron$ evidence to the effect that appellant alone
dia$noses his patients8 ailents and applies the reedies therefor
-
+ithout +ritten order or
prescription b' a re$istered ph'sician.
'ud(ment. Eherefore, the decision appealed fro is hereb' affired in all parts and respects.
Costs a$ainst appellant.
%autista )n(elo* +a,rador* Concepcion* Re-es* '.%.+.* %arrera* #aredes* Di.on and De +eon ''.*
concur.
#adilla* '.* too/ no part.
!oo'no'()
0
(ec. 0 3Act >-)>4. &iolation penali#ed b' special acts shall unless other+ise provided in
such Acts, prescribe in accordance +ith the follo+in$ rules6 .
3b4 after four 'ears for those punished b' iprisonent for ore than one onth but
less than t+o 'ears.
,
7) Phil. />-.
>
C.(. vs. %oe# :esus, >0 Phil. ,,/-,>>.
7
Republic vs. %o Bon Aee, A-00711, April ,1, 01-0< Foppel 3Phil.4 "nc. vs. Collector of "nternal
Revenue, A-0*//*, (ept. 01, 01-0.
/
Republic Act No. ,>.>, (ec. 00. E9eptions. Precedin$ section shall not be construed to
affect 3a4 an' edical student dul' enrolled in an' approved edical colle$e or school under
trainin$, servin$ +ithout an' professional fee in an' $overnent or private hospital, provided
that he renders such service under the direct supervision and control of a re$istered
ph'sician< 3b4 an' le$all' re$istered dentist en$a$ed e9clusivel' in the practice of dentistr'<
3c4 an' dul' re$istered asseur or ph'siotherapist, provided that he applies assa$e or
other ph'sical eans upon +ritten order or prescription of a dul' re$istered ph'sician or
provided that such application of assa$e or ph'sical eans shall be liited to ph'sical or
uscular developent..
-
(ee E9hibit 2A2.