THE Office of the Cebu City Prosecutor threw out the criminal complaint that a former medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) 7 filed against two officials of the Cebu City Health Office (CCHO) and a government doctor over post-mortem exam findings.
Assistant City Prosecutor Ramon Carisma dismissed for want of probable cause the unjust vexation filed by Dr. Gil Cua Macato against Dr. Stella Ygonia, CCHO chief; Dr. Eliseo Virtucio II, CCHO Cadaver Section chief; and Dr. Nestor Sator, police medico-legal officer.
In his seven-page resolution, Carisma pointed out that the respondents, who are all public officials, enjoy the presumption of regularity of official conduct.
“In their interpretation of the law in question, good faith is ascribable to them, absent allegation and proof which would destroy such presumption of regularity of official function,” Carisma said.
Background
Last April 10, Macato filed the complaint before the Office of the Cebu City Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and the Professional Regulation Commission.
Macato said Virtucio began questioning, doubting and even “adversely commenting” on the certificates of death of his client funeral parlors.
Virtucio allegedly told the funeral parlors, which engaged Macato’s services, that his findings are inaccurate and that he is not qualified to sign certificates.
Likewise, Virtucio allegedly told the funeral parlors that he would not accept death certificates signed by Macato.
Macato said Virtucio asked the funeral parlors’ representatives why they hired him and how much they paid him.
Macato said Virtucio offered to do the job himself, or, in his absence, he recommended Dr. Sator to conduct post-mortem examinations.
He said Virtucio rejected the death certificate of one Quirino Togonon, whom he (Macato) had examined.
Wrong venue
Virtucio allegedly instructed the funeral parlor representative to refer the case to Dr. Sator, who then conducted an autopsy and issued another death certificate.
The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, denied the charges, arguing that Macato erred in his interpretation of Section1087 of the Revised Administrative Code, stating that a licensed physician is allowed to issue death certificates.
They also argued that the law provides that in the absence of the attending physician, the city or municipal health officer, or any authorized government official can issue death certificate.
In the resolution, Carisma said Macato may seek clarificatory inquiry or administrative action if the latter thought the respondents were wrong in interpreting the law.
“But it is not for this office to rule and interpret on who are qualified and competent to issue death certificates in cases where there is no attending physician.”