A group of parents, who tragically lost their children due to complications from the controversial anti-dengue vaccine Dengvaxia, have requested the Quezon City Regional Trial Court to reconsider its previous decision to void 34 out of 35 criminal cases filed against Rep. Janette Garin, the former secretary of the Department of Health (DoH).
Led by Sumachen Dominguez, the president of the Samahan ng mga Magulang ang mga Anak ay Biktima ng Dengvaxia (SMABD), the parents filed a motion for reconsideration before Judge Maria Luisa Gonzales-Betic of QC-RTC Branch 229. The prosecution panel, headed by Deputy City Prosecutor Irene Resurreccion-Medrano, urged the court to reconsider its order and grant the partial motion for reconsideration.
The prosecution panel also requested the court to deny the motion to quash filed by accused individuals Melody Samudio, Dr. Janette Garin, Dr. Maria Rosario Capeding, Dr. Rosalind Vianzon, Carlito Realuyo, and Conchita Santos, in the interest of justice.
In a previous ruling, Gonzales-Betic granted the motion filed by Garin’s lawyers and co-accused, resulting in the rejection of 34 out of 35 new Dengvaxia cases. The court cited Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that charges should not be split, and only one information should be filed regardless of the number or severity of the consequences of the imprudent or negligent act.
Consequently, only one case remains, which will be handled and tried by the judge. This case pertains to the charge of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicides and serious physical injuries.
The prosecution argued that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Dengvaxia cases should be tried separately since they involve different facts. In its resolution on April 12, 2023, the Supreme Court emphasized that each case should be tried separately as they involve different victims with distinct medical histories.
The prosecution panel stated that Gonzales-Betic’s joint order lacks a factual and legal basis. They argued that it is contrary to law and jurisprudence to apply the “Ivler and Morales doctrines” since these rulings are not applicable to the current case. They emphasized that there are numerous counts of reckless imprudence due to the multiple victims who were inoculated with Dengvaxia on different occasions, dates, and places.
Furthermore, Resurreccion-Medrano and her team highlighted that the first family court, which initially handled the cases, declared the inapplicability of the Ivler case to both the first batch of eight cases and the subsequent 35 cases.
The prosecution panel also stressed the long-term effects of the Dengvaxia vaccine, as testified by Dr. Mary Ann Lansang, an internist and University of the Philippines professor. Dr. Lansang stated that five years of surveillance may not be sufficient for evaluating the children who received the Dengvaxia vaccine.
The prosecution panel expressed concern about the fate of other individuals who have been inoculated with the Dengvaxia vaccine. They questioned what would happen to these individuals if the court’s ruling stands. The families of these children, who have become victims of this unfortunate situation, are left with no recourse but to accept their fate.
Dominguez previously mentioned that her group would file a motion requesting the QC judge to recuse themselves from further handling the case if the motion for reconsideration is not granted.
Source: The Manila Times
