Case Summary (G.R. No. 195547)
Charged Acts and Defendant’s Admissions
The information charged that the defendant, without a certificate of registration from the Board of Medical Examiners, practiced medicine for compensation, treated and manipulated the head and body of a patient (Regino Noble) to cure alleged ailments, collected P1 for treatment, and advertised and represented herself as a physician by using the prefix “Dra.” on cards, letterheads, signs and newspaper advertisements. At trial the defendant admitted she lacked board certification on June 1, 1923; that she performed a spinal manipulation (“thrust”) on Regino Noble and received P1; that the treatment occurred at her office; that she advertised as a “doctor of chiropractic” and prefixed “Dra.” to her name; and that she held a chiropractic diploma issued August 13, 1919 by the American University School of Chiropractic, Chicago.
Procedural Posture and Sentence
The defendant demurred to the information on grounds of multiplicity and improper form; the demurrer was overruled and she pleaded not guilty. After the defendant’s admissions and other evidence, the trial court found her guilty of violating the Medical Law and, pursuant to section 2678 of the Administrative Code, sentenced her to pay a fine of P300 (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency) and costs. The defendant appealed, raising four assignments of error.
Assignment of Error 1 — Multiplicity of Offenses (Demurrer)
Issue presented: Whether the information charged more than one offense because it alleged acts covered by different sections (e.g., illegal practice under section 770 and unauthorized use of title under section 783).
Court’s analysis and holding: The Medical Law provisions themselves are regulatory; the penal sanction for violations is located in section 2678, which punishes “violation of the Medical Law.” Because the statute penalizes violation of the Medical Law as a unitary offense, the various illegal acts alleged are alternative means of committing the single statutory offense rather than separate offenses requiring multiple informations. The court analogized to prior decisions treating different means of committing a single statutory offense as chargeable in a single information and cited precedent (United States v. Poh Chi; United States v. Douglass; United States v. Dorr; United States v. Tolentino; United States v. Gustilo). The court thereby upheld overruling of the demurrer and concluded the information was not multiplicitous. Justice Romualdez dissented on this ground, believing the complaint charged more than one offense and that the demurrer should have been sustained.
Assignment of Error 2 — Chiropractic vs. Practice of Medicine
Issue presented: Whether chiropractic falls outside the statutory definition of the practice of medicine and thus cannot be prosecuted under the Medical Law.
Court’s analysis and holding: Even if chiropractic may not fall within the ordinary meaning of “practice of medicine,” the statute contains a definition of “practice of medicine” (section 770) that explicitly includes manipulations such as those employed in chiropractic. The court held that the statutory definition controls over ordinary usage, and therefore chiropractic manipulative treatment falls within the scope of the Medical Law as defined by the Administrative Code.
Assignment of Error 3 — Reasonableness of Examination Requirement and Constitutional Rights
Issue presented: Whether requiring chiropractors to pass the statutory medical examination (per sections 776 and 778 as amended by Act No. 3111) is unreasonable, effectively prohibiting chiropractic, and thus violative of constitutional rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equal protection.
Court’s analysis and holding: The court rejected the argument as lacking force. The subjects required by section 778 (as amended) relate to matters necessary for proper diagnosis of human disease, and the State, under its police power, may reasonably require those who cure human ills to possess such knowledge. The court found this requirement within the State’s authority to protect public health and safety, citing analogous authorities (state cases referenced in the opinion). Thus, the examination requirement was not an unconstitutional prohibition of the profession.
Assignment of Error 4 — Unauthorized Use of the Title “Doctor”
Issue presented: Whether the statute’s prohibition on unauthorized use of the title “doctor” (section 783) applies to chiropractors or is limited to “Doctor of Medicine.”
Court’s analysis and holding: Because the Administrative Code’s statutory definition treats chiropractic manipulations as a form of the practice of medicine, a person advertising as a “doctor of chiropractic” legally represents herself as a doctor of medicine. Accordingly, unauthorized use of the title “doctor” in that context falls within the statute’s prohibition.
Assignment of Error 5 — Constitutionality of Act No. 3111’s Title
Issue presented: Whether Act No. 3111 is invalid because its title does not sufficiently express its subject and embraces more than one subject.
Court’s analys
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195547)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 47 Phil. 536; G.R. No. 22945; decided March 03, 1925.
- Decision authored by Justice Ostrand; Justices Malcolm, Villamor, and Johns concurred; Justice Romualdez dissented.
- Appeal from a conviction in the trial court for violation of the Medical Act (Administrative Code provisions and penal sanction of section 2678).
- Judgment below: defendant found guilty, fined P300 under section 2678 of the Administrative Code, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and ordered to pay costs.
- Appeal presents four assignments of error addressed by this Court.
Charged Offense and Allegations in the Information
- The information alleged that on or about June 1, 1923, and for some time prior thereto, the accused, without obtaining from the Board of Medical Examiners the corresponding certificate of registration for the practice of medicine in the Philippine Islands, voluntarily, illegally and criminally, and for compensation, practiced medicine in Manila.
- Specific acts alleged: assisting, treating and manipulating the head and body of Regino Noble for the purpose of curing him of ailments he pretended to suffer; advertising and offering her services as a physician by business cards, letterheads, signs on the office door at No. 712 Calle Asuncion, and newspaper advertisements; prefacing and adding the letters "Dra." (abbreviation of "doctor") to her name in such cards, letterheads, signs and advertising to cause the public to believe she had received the corresponding title of doctor.
- The information thus alleged multiple illegal acts in violation of the Medical Law and the unauthorized use of the title "doctor."
Demurrer and Initial Procedural Rulings
- Defendant demurred to the information on two grounds: (1) that it stated more than one offense, and (2) that it was not drawn in accordance with the form prescribed by law.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer.
- Defendant pleaded not guilty after demurrer was overruled.
Admissions and Evidence at Trial
- Defendant made express admissions at trial, quoted in the record, including:
- That on June 1, 1923, she had no certificate from the Board of Medical Examiners authorizing her to practice medicine in the Philippine Islands.
- That on that day she treated and manipulated the head and body of Regino Noble to cure alleged ailments, the treatment consisting of a "thrust" by application of the hand to the spinal column.
- That she received and collected from Regino Noble the sum of P1 for such treatment.
- That the treatment took place in her office at No. 712 Calle Asuncion, District of Binondo, City of Manila.
- That on or about June 1, 1923, and for some time prior, she advertised herself as a "doctor of chiropractic" in Manila via business cards and in the newspaper El Debate (issue of April 29, 1923), and prefixed the abbreviation "Dra." to her name in such advertisements.
- That she was graduated a doctor in chiropractic on August 13, 1919, evidenced by a certificate marked Exhibit I issued by the American University School of Chiropractic of Chicago, Illinois.
- The trial court relied on these admissions and other evidence to find guilt as charged.
Statutory Framework and Provisions Invoked
- The Medical Law appears in sections 758 to 783 of the Administrative Code (as referenced in the opinion).
- Penal sanction for violations of the Medical Law is provided by section 2678 of the Administrative Code, which states: "A person violating any provision of the Medical Law shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both, in the discretion of the court."
- Section 770 of the Administrative Code contains the statutory definition of the "practice of medicine" (as applied by the Court), and the Court treats chiropractic manipulations as included within that statutory definition.
- Section 776 and section 778 (the latter as amended by Act No. 3111) prescribe examination requirements for admission to practice; the Court addresses the scope and reasonableness of those subjects.
- Section 783 prohibits unauthorized use of the title "doctor" (as applied by the Court to the facts).
- Act No. 3111 amends a series of sections of the Administrative Code, including section 770 and section 2678; its title as printed in the record is quoted in full in the opinion.
Assignments of Error Presented on Appeal
- First assignment: The demurrer should have been sustained because the information charged more than one offense.
- Second assignment: Chiropractic is not the practice of medicine; therefore the statute cannot be applied to chiropractic, and requiring chiropractors to pass the medical examination unduly burdens or effectively prohibits their practice, implicating constitutional rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and equal protection.
- Third assignment: The prohibition in section 783 against the unauthorized use of the title "doctor" should be construed to refer only to "Doctor of Medicine" and not to doctors of chiropractic.
- Fourth assignment: Act No. 3111 (which amended section 770 among others) is unconstitutional because its title does not sufficiently express the subject of the Act and it embraces more than one subject.
Court’s Analysis — Demurrer and Single Offense Rule (First Assignment)
- The Court rejects the contention that the information charged more than one offense.
- T