Government lawyers have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to review the dismissal of the criminal charges against two dentists who allegedly denied dental services to a patient afflicted with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Sought for review in the separate petitions filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) was the Feb. 9, 2023 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA resolution affirmed its 2022 decision that upheld the ruling of the Taguig City regional trial court (RTC) which dismissed the petition filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Taguig.
The OCP assailed before the RTC the Taguig City metropolitan trial court’s ruling that granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the two dentists – Dr. Sarah Jane M. Mugar and Dr. Mylene Guevarra Igrubay – on the complaint lodged by Henry R. Se for violation of Section 40 of Republic Act No. 8504, the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Prevention and Control Act of 1998.
A demurrer to evidence is a motion that seeks dismissal of the criminal charges on allegations that the prosecution’s evidence is weak to sustain a conviction. If granted, the dismissal of the charges is tantamount to an acquittal.
The petition stated that Se visited the Enhanced Dental Clinic (EDC) in Taguig City on Feb. 16, 2017 for consultation on the pain in his left molar tooth.
After disclosing that he is under medical treatment for HIV, Mugar advised Se to seek clearance from his physician before undergoing tooth extraction.
Se called EDC on Feb. 21, 2017 to set the schedule for the tooth extraction. However, Mugar – on alleged instruction of Igrubay who is the owner of the clinic – “rejected Se's request for dental appointment because EDC purportedly does not have the ‘UV Type’ of desterilization equipment.”
In its petition filed in behalf of Se, the OSG told the SC that “the provision and standard of oral health care services for patients is the same regardless of the condition of the patient.”
“It is the primary duty of each dentist to deliver safe, effective and quality dental service and to practice universal precaution by treating every patient as if carrying an infectious disease,” it said.
For its part, PAO stressed the need to enforce RA 8504. “In the Philippines, laws on anti-discrimination are already in place. But unless the law is enforced and the State recognizes acts of discrimination, discrimination will never end,” PAO told the SC.
The OSG said that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and misrepresented the facts “when it held that the prosecution failed to prove respondents' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
The CA decision, among other things, ruled that the failure of the EDC to render services to Se was “not ‘on account of actual, perceived or suspected HIV status,’ but the clinic's lack of the necessary desterilization equipment that the law mandates in the dental management of persons with HIV.”
But the OSG pointed out that during the litigation of the case “it is an established fact that EDC has ‘first class materials, sterilized dental instruments, and disposable dental supplies.’”
“That EDC had no UV sterilization equipment is belied by the very assertion of the clinic itself that it has ‘first class materials,’” the OSG said.
It also said that the inconsistency can only be explained by one conclusion – “that the lack of UV light sterilization was an excuse to deny service to Se, an obvious discriminatory act.”
Though there may be a lack UV sterilization equipment, the OSG said the prosecution presented as expert witness Dr. Anastacio Rosete Jr. who “testified that there could still be other means of sterilization used by the clinic.”
“At the time Dr. Mugar advised Henry Se to secure a clearance, it was apparent that the tooth extraction will proceed if and when Henry Se is able to comply with the required clearance. It is obvious that the refusal to perform the tooth extraction was contemplated upon and therefore a well thought of strategy to deny tooth extraction service to Henry Se,” PAO said.
“When he was required to secure a medical clearance, it was unequivocal that a tooth extraction can be performed by the clinic; only at that time, a clearance had to be obtained first. That was the only condition and requirement for the tooth extraction to proceed. There was no pronouncement from Dr. Mugar regarding the sufficiency of their facilities on 16 February 2017,” it said.
Also citing the testimony of Rosete, PAO also said the two dentists “did not refer Henry Se to receive the needed dental service to another dental clinic, contrary to the Code of Ethics for Dentists, Dental Hygienist, and Dental Technologists.”