Skip to main content

Abdula vs. Guiani

Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor foun...

Republic Act No. 10932 - Anti-Hospital Deposit Law




On August 3, 2017, President Rodrigo R. Duterte signed into law the Republic Act No. 10932 or also known as the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law.

Overview

This is an act to strengthen the anti-hospital deposit law by incresing the penalties for the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency or serious cases.

Amendment

This law is to amend Batas Pambansa Bilang 702, otherwise known as  "An act prohibiting the demand of deposits or advance payments for the confinement or treatment of patients in hospitals and medical clinics in certain cases", as amended by Republic Act No. 8344 and for other purposes.

Summary

SECTION 1. The law prohibits any hospital or medical clinic personnel, as defined or mentioned in the act, to request, solicit, demand or accept any deposit or any other form of advance payment as a prerequisite for administering initial or basic medical care to patients. This also applies to all who refused to administer such treatment and support to prevent death, permanent injury or loss of child in case of pregnant woman.


  • Proviso: Hospital or medical clinic may transfer the patient treatment by reason of the inadequacy of the medical capabilities of the hospital or medical clinic after a consent to transfer another facility has been given by the patient or next of his kin. The medical personnel/physician can transfer the patient to another facility if he/she is unconscious, incapable of giving consent, and/or unaccompanied. The transfer shall only be done after all the necessary emergency treatment has been made and the physicians will declare that such transfer entails less risk than further confinement.
  • The hospital or medical clinic where the patient shall be transferred shall also abide the same procedure as mandated in this act.
Definition of Terms

SECTION 2

Emergency - the condition of a patient that entails immediate danger and such delay in initial support and treatment may cause loss of life, permanent disability, or loss of child or noninstitutional delivery in case of a pregnant woman.

Serious case - the condition of a patient characterized by gravity or danger.

Basic emergency care - urgent response like diagnosis and use of medical equipment and/or supplies.

Noninstitutional delivery -  the delivery of a newborn while in transit, outside of a health facility, after an initial consultation was done with a health facility.

The Role of the LGU

SECTION 3. In case there is no ambulance available for use by the hospital or medical clinic to render the transfer, the local government unit (LGU) where the hospital or medical clinic is located must allow the FREE use of its emergency vehicle and must be accompanied by a staff nurse with Advanced Cardiovascular Support (ACLS) Certification or its equivalent. 

Penalty

Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be, upon conviction by final judgment, be punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day but not more than two (2) years and four (4) months, or a fine of not less than one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) and not more than three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000), or both, at the the discretion of the court.

  • Proviso: If the violation was committed pursuant to an established policy of the hospital or medical clinic or upon instructions given by higher personnel of the said hospital or medical clinic, the penalty shall be imprisonment of four (4) to six (6) years and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) and not more than one million pesos (P1,000,000) or both at the discretion of the court.
Read Full Text

Comments

  1. Be honest .we need more like Tatay digong in our county.Yes he has flaws.but not like any other politicians.He achieve his goal by doing what it needs(war on drugs) Sakit.info

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff...

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born ...

DRILON VS. LIM

GR No. 112497, August 4 1994 FACTS: Pursuant to Section 187 of the Local Government Code or the Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings, Secretary of Justice had, on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared Ordinance No. 7794, otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. In a petition, the Regional Trial Court of Manila revoked the Secretary's resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding inter alia that the procedural requirements had been observed. Instead, it declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional because of its vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the power of control over local governments in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the specific...