Scribd
Upload
168 views1 page

033 KAWPENG People Vs Buenviaje

Defendant Buenviaje was accused of violating the Medical Law by illegally practicing medicine and advertising herself as a doctor. She objected to the accusations, arguing that the complaint charged multiple offenses and was not properly drawn. The lower court found her guilty and imposed a fine. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, ruling that amendments to the Medical Law were sufficiently expressed in the title and that illegally practicing medicine and false advertising constituted a single offense under the law.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
168 views1 page

033 KAWPENG People Vs Buenviaje

Defendant Buenviaje was accused of violating the Medical Law by illegally practicing medicine and advertising herself as a doctor. She objected to the accusations, arguing that the complaint charged multiple offenses and was not properly drawn. The lower court found her guilty and imposed a fine. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, ruling that amendments to the Medical Law were sufficiently expressed in the title and that illegally practicing medicine and false advertising constituted a single offense under the law.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE vs BUENVIAJE (Shanie)

GR No.22945. March 3, 1925 | Ostrand, J. | Parts of Statutes – How requirements of The rule is that a title (mandatory statute to amend a designated section) is sufficient
the title construed without the need to state again the precise nature of the amendatory acts.

PLAINTIFF & APPELLEE: People of the Philippines


770, 774, 775, 776, 778, 780, 782, 783, 2678 of Act numbered 2711, known as the
DEFENDANT & APPELLANT: Jovita M Buenviaje
Administrative Code, increasing the number of the members of the Board of Medical
Examiners, conferring upon the same certain additional powers and responsibilities
SUMMARY:
and for other purposes.”
Defendant Buenviaje was accused of violating the Medical Law, for illegally
practicing medicine and for illegally advertising oneself as a doctor. Defendant
The SC contends that all the sections enumerated in the title quoted relate to the
objected to the accusations on grounds that: (1) informations (complaint) stated
same general subject, namely defining and regulating the practice of Medicine, and
more than one offense; (2) it is not drawn with the form prescribed by law.
section 770 is expressedly mentioned as one of the sections amended.
Lower court found defendant guilty as charged, and applying Sec 2678 of the
The general rule is that a title which declares the mandatory statue to be an act
Administrative Code, sentenced P300 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case
to amend a designated section or the like, of a specified Code, is sufficient and
of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
the precise nature of the amendatory Act need not be further stated.
DOCTRINE: Title of Amendatory Statute – General rule a that a title which
declares a mandatory statute to be an act to amend a designated section, or the
like, of a specified code, is sufficient and the precise nature of the amendatory
Other contentions, not relevant to doctrine:
act need not be further stated.
1. Accused contends that more than one offence was charged (illegal practice and
false advertising)
- The Medical Law is contained in Secs 758-783 of the Administrative Code.
FACTS: Some of the illegal acts which defendant is charged is found in Sec 770 and
the others in Sec 783 fo the Code. So, the defendant claimed she is charged
Defendant Buenviaje was accused of violating the Medical Law on counts of illegal twice.
practice of medicine, and illegal advertising oneself as a doctor. - Not true per SC. The offense charged is “violation of the Medical Law’ and
the statute makes no distinction between illegal practice of medicine or false
CFI charged her with P300 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, advertising. Both are in violation of the Medical Law and carry the same
and to pay the costs. penalty.
o That the various means of committing the offense (illegal practice and
Appealed to the SC. false advertising) described in more than one section of the stature does
not necessarily effect the general principle involved; the subdivision of
ISSUE/s: WoN the CFI erred in its judgement - NO the statutes into section is merely a matter of convenience and while it
sometimes may be of aid in ascertaining legislative intent…It is not the
RULING: The CFI decision is AFFIRMED, with cost against the appellant. intention of of the legislator that each single act be regarded as a
separate offense and separation informations (complaints) be presented
RATIO: for each.
Appellant questions the constitutionality of the Act 3111, amending Sec 770 of the 2. Appellant argues in substance that chiropractic, and the practice of that
Administrative Code, on the ground that the subject of the Act is not sufficiently profession, should not be regarded as a practice of medicine and subsequently,
expressed in its title, and that it embraces more than one subject. the title ‘doctor’ has no application to the Doctor of Medicine.
o The statutory definition necessarily prevails over the ordinary one.
The Title of Act 3111 reads “An Act to amend Secs 759, 760, 761, 762, 765, 767, In the statures, chiro is considered part of Medicine.

You might also like