LAW 118
MEDICAL
JURISPRUDENCE/
LEGAL MEDICINE
SYLLABUS 2024-25
2nd Semester
Prof. James Dennis C. Gumpal, MD, JD
​
MODULE 1: (2 hours)
-
Introduction to Medical Jurisprudence
-
Anatomy for Lawyers
-
Physical Injuries
-
Medico-Legal Reports & Drawings
Objectives: By the end of the module, the students should be able to
-
Verbalize the expectations for the course
-
Identify anatomical parts and physical injuries; apply this knowledge to an actual case and explain its medico-legal importance in determining the appropriate legal classification of the injuries based on the Revise Penal Code.
-
Explain parts of a Medico-Legal Report and Medico-Legal Drawing to an actual case.
-
Recite and explain the main provisions on the subject of Physical Injuries under the Revised Penal Code (Arts. 252, 253, 262-266)
Methodology
-
Interactive Lectures on:
-
Introduction to Medical Jurisprudence
-
Anatomy for lawyers
-
Physical Injuries
-
Medico-Legal Reports & Drawing
-
2. Recitation - People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 197546 (2015)
Laws: Revised Penal Code (Physical Injuries)
​
Practical Exercise (for the next meeting):
Each Team will be assigned the following cases:
Team 1: People v. Vicente, G.R. No. L-26241 (1969)
Team 2: People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. L-62032 (1983)
Team 3: People v. Flores, G.R. Nos. 143435-36 (2003)
Team 4: People v. Panerio, G.R. No. 205440 (2018)
Practical Exercise(for the next meeting)
Each Team prepares the following:
-
A Medico-Legal Report and Drawing based on the facts of the above cases.
-
Each Team will submit a physical copy of the Medico-Legal Report and Drawing as well as a digital copy of the actual presentation during the class the following week.
-
The slide presentation shall only be limited to 5 minutes and no more than 7 slides including the title slide.
MODULE 2: (2 hours)
-
Biometrics
-
DNA
-
Parentage​
​​
Objectives: By the end of the module the students should be able to
-
Present the team-assigned Practical Exercise case and answer relevant questions about the presentation.
-
Explain the different types of fingerprints and minutiae and relate this to an actual case.
-
Explain the different parts of a DNA Profile and why it is unique for each person and relate its importance.
-
Explain how DNA traces a person’s parentage.
Methodology
-
Present the Team output on the Anatomy/Physical Injuries Modules through a slide presentation with discussion and feedback
-
Interactive Lectures on:
-
Biometrics
-
DNA
-
Parentage
-
-
Quiz on: Anatomy and Physical Injuries
-
Recitation:
People v. Medina, G.R. No. L-38434, December 23, 1933
People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002
People v XXX GR 242694, 17 February 2021
Practical exercise: (for next meeting)
-
Each Team will be assigned DNA Profile Results to determine identity and parentage.
-
The Teams will present their findings through a presentation of no more than 5 minutes per team and no more than 6 slides per presentation.
MODULE 3: (2 hours)
-
Legal Aspects of Assisted Reproductive Technology
-
Pregnancy, Abortion & the Rights of the Unborn
-
Violence Against Women & Children
​
Objectives: By the end of the module the students should be able to
-
Demonstrate a deeper understanding of how DNA is used as evidence of identity and parentage through the various Practical Exercise presentations. Gain confidence and skills in doing presentations.
-
Explain the medical basis of conception and pregnancy and relate it to the constitutional protection of the zygote, the rights of the unborn, and those who are pregnant.
-
Discuss the legal aspects of Assisted Reproductive Technology.
-
Discuss the medico-legal aspects of violence against women in terms of evidence and its prosecution or defense.
Methodology
-
Presentation of the output of different teams on DNA Profiles in relation to identity and paternity
-
Interactive Lectures on:
-
Medico-legal Aspects of Impotency and Assisted Reproductive Technology
-
Medico-Legal Aspects of Pregnancy, Abortion in relation to the the Rights of the Unborn
-
Evidentiary Basis of Violence Against Women
3. Quiz on: Biometrics, DNA, and Parentage
4. Recitation:
People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229209 (2020)
People v. Basallo, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013
People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
People v. XXX, G.R. No. 245926, July 25, 2023
​
Practical exercise: (for next meeting)
-
Each Team will be assigned to a case. Prepare the final medico-legal drawing documenting the rape as well as a hypothetical Judicial Affidavit of the victim and the Medico-Legal or Expert Witness assuming you are on the prosecution side. Based on the Judicial Affidavit, prepare cross-examination questions for both the victim/alleged victim and the Expert Witness.
-
Present the Medico-Legal drawing in a 3-minute presentation with no more than 4 slides.
MODULE 4: (2 hours)
-
Insanity & Psychological Incapacity
-
Addiction and Toxicity
-
Sexuality
​
Objectives: By the end of the module the students should be able to
-
Gain a deeper understanding of the nature and legal aspects of violence against women through case presentations.
-
Explain the medical classification relating to the state or condition of the mind and how it relates to actual cases.
-
Discuss how to prove and defend cases involving the state of the mind.
-
Explain the medico-legal basis of addiction and toxicity and how it relates to actual cases.
-
Explain the different aspects of sexuality in relation to actual cases.
Classification of Mental Conditions
-
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (currently, DSM-V TR) by the American Psychiatric Association
-
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) by the World Health Organization
Methodology
-
Presentation of practical exercises Violence Against Women.
-
Interactive lectures on:
-
Insanity & Psychological Incapacity
-
Addiction and Toxicity
-
Sexuality
-
-
Quiz on: Insanity & Psychological Incapacity, Addiction &Toxicity, Sexuality
-
Recitation:
Turalbay-Villegas v. People, March 16, 2022G.R. No. 216453
People of the Philippines v. Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999
Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021
Agacid y Dejanio v. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 242133, April 16, 2024
​
Practical Exercise (for next meeting)
-
Prepare for two debate topics:
-
For and against the passage of the current version of the SOGIE Bill
-
For and against the passage of the Medical Marijuana Bill
-
-
Each team will be assigned a side to the debate
-
The total debate time is only 15 minutes
-
Prepare a bulleted main points in your arguments and its supporting evidence.
MODULE 5 (2 hours)
-
Medical Ethics & Experiments Involving Human Participants
-
Medical Malpractice
Objectives: By the end of the module, the students should be able to
-
Argue a side to a debate topic involving Sexuality and Addiction and appreciate the arguments of both sides.
-
Explain the medico-legal aspects of euthanasia, medical directives on life support, and clinical trials involving human subjects.
-
Explain the elements and doctrines of medical malpractice and relate to actual cases.
Laws:
Nuremberg Code
Declaration of Helsinki
2022 National Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Human Participants
Methodology
-
Debate on topics related to Sexuality and Addiction
-
Interactive lectures on:
-
Medical ethics and human experimentation
-
Medical Malpractice
-
-
Quiz on: ​Medical Ethics & Experiments Involving Human Participants; Medical Malpractice
MODULE 6 (1 hour)
Medico-Legal Aspects of Death
Objectives: By the end of the module, the students should be able to:
-
Explain legal death and organ transplant.
-
Identify the significance of information contained in a death certificate.
-
Discuss the different stages of decomposition.
Law: Republic Act No. 7170, Jan. 7, 1992, as amended by R.A. 7885, 20 Feb 1995
​
Methodology
-
Interactive lectures on:
-
Legal Death & Organ Transplant
-
Stages of Death
-
Death Certificate
-
-
Quiz: Death
-
Recitation:
Alano v. Magud-Logmao, G.R. No. 175540, April 14, 2014
People v. Conrado Ayuman, G.R. No. 133436, April 14, 2004
Module 7 (1 hour)
-
Course synthesis projects
​
Objective: By the end of the project presentation the students can summarize their learnings in Medical Jurisprudence in a creative and participatory way.
Methodology: Presentation by each Team of their course synthesis projects for no more than 10 minutes each.
​​
BASES OF FINAL GRADE:
20% Practical exercises
20% Quizzes
20% Mid-terms
20% Final exam
10% Recitation
10% Course synthesis
​​
BASIS OF PRACTICAL EXERCISES (20 points/exercise) by teams
Accuracy (0-5 points)
5 points: All elements are correct, demonstrating precise execution of the task with no errors.
4 points: Mostly accurate with minor errors that do not affect the overall outcome significantly.
3 points: Some inaccuracies that slightly affect the result but demonstrate basic understanding.
2 points: Noticeable errors that impact the outcome, showing a lack of understanding.
1 point: Many significant errors, showing a limited grasp of the task requirements.
0 points: Task is incorrect with no attempt to follow the instructions accurately.
Clarity & Creativity (0-5 points)
5 points: Exceptionally clear and creative approach, showing original thinking and well-organized presentation.
4 points: Clear presentation with creative elements; mostly well-organized and engaging.
3 points: Adequate clarity and some creativity; presentation is straightforward with minor organizational issues.
2 points: Lacks clarity or creativity; presentation is confusing or poorly structured.
1 point: Minimal clarity and no creativity; presentation is disorganized and difficult to follow.
0 points: No clarity or creativity; presentation is incoherent or not attempted.
Analysis (0-5 points)
5 points: Deep analysis with insightful observations and a strong understanding of the task’s purpose.
4 points: Good analysis with clear observations; some depth shown in understanding the task.
3 points: Basic analysis that addresses key points but lacks depth or critical insight.
2 points: Limited analysis with superficial observations; shows little understanding of the task.
1 point: Inadequate analysis; minimal effort to engage with the task analytically.
0 points: No analysis provided; no engagement with the task’s deeper aspects.
Completeness (0-5 points)
5 points: All components of the task are fully completed with no missing elements.
4 points: Most components are completed with minor omissions that do not affect the overall task.
3 points: Several key components are missing but the main task is somewhat completed.
2 points: Many components are incomplete, significantly affecting the overall task.
1 point: Very little of the task is completed; major components are missing.
0 points: Task is not completed or submitted.
BASIS OF RECITATION (25 points)
Understanding of Legal Principles (10 points)
10-9 points: Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles and doctrines involved in the case. Clearly explains the legal issues and how they were resolved by the court.
8-7 points: Shows a good understanding of the legal principles but may miss some nuances or minor details.
6-5 points: Displays a basic understanding but lacks depth or misses key elements of the legal principles.
4-3 points: Shows minimal understanding with significant gaps in the explanation of legal principles.
2-1 points: Poor understanding with major errors or misunderstandings of the legal principles.
0 points: No understanding demonstrated; unable to articulate any relevant legal principles.
Case Facts and Background (5 points)
5 points: Accurately and clearly presents all relevant facts and background information of the case.
4 points: Presents the main facts accurately but may omit minor details.
3 points: Includes some relevant facts but omits or misrepresents key information.
2 points: Significant inaccuracies or omissions in presenting the facts.
1 point: Very little relevant information presented; major factual inaccuracies.
0 points: No facts presented; unable to describe the background of the case.
Case Holding and Rationale (5 points)
5 points: Clearly and accurately explain the court’s holding and the rationale behind the decision.
4 points: Accurately explains the holding but may miss some nuances in the court’s reasoning.
3 points: Basic explanation of the holding with some inaccuracies or omissions in the rationale.
2 points: Incomplete or partially inaccurate explanation of the holding and rationale.
1 point: Major errors in explaining the holding and rationale.
0 points: Unable to explain the court’s holding or rationale.
Analysis and Critical Thinking (3 points)
3 points: Provides insightful analysis, linking the case to broader legal concepts or implications.
2 points: Offers some analysis but lacks depth or fails to fully explore the implications.
1 point: Minimal analysis, largely descriptive without critical engagement.
0 points: No analysis or critical thinking demonstrated.
Presentation Skills (2 points)
2 points: Presents clearly, confidently, and in a well-organized manner, with excellent communication skills.
1 point: The presentation is generally clear but may have minor issues with organization or communication.
0 points: Presentation is unclear, disorganized, or difficult to follow.
Total Score: 25 points
25-23 points: Excellent understanding and presentation; well-prepared and thorough.
22-19 points: Very good understanding; prepared but with some minor areas for improvement.
18-15 points: Good understanding; basic preparation with noticeable gaps.
14-10 points: Fair understanding; lacks depth and thoroughness, with significant gaps.
9-5 points: Poor understanding and preparation; major gaps in knowledge.
4-0 points: Very poor or no understanding; unprepared.
GUIDELINES FOR END SEMESTER PROJECT SYNTHESIS
The end-of-semester project in medical jurisprudence allows students to synthesize and apply the knowledge they have gained throughout the course. This project encourages creativity, critical thinking, and a deeper understanding of the legal issues that intersect with medical practice. The project can take various formats and should be based on a synthesis of key topics covered in the course.
Basis for grading:
​
Accuracy (5 points)
The project demonstrates a high level of accuracy in interpreting medical jurisprudence concepts. Information should be factually correct, well-researched, and align with the legal framework discussed in class. Maximum points are awarded when the project reflects precise understanding of key topics.
Involvement and Effort by Team Members (5 points)
All team members must contribute meaningfully to the project. Points are given based on equal participation in research, content creation, and presentation. Teams should demonstrate strong collaboration, and each member’s effort should be evident in the final output.
Presentation (5 points)
The presentation should be clear, organized, and professional. The ability to effectively communicate ideas, both orally and visually, is essential. High scores will be given for projects that are delivered confidently and engage the audience throughout.
Creativity (5 points)
Originality and creativity are key in presenting the concepts of medical jurisprudence. Projects should show innovative thinking, using unique examples, visuals, or approaches that go beyond basic interpretations. Engaging and imaginative presentations will earn full marks.
Total: 20 points
OTHER CONCERNS
-
No laptops/gadgets during class
-
Maximum of 2 absences
-
Prepare a Viber-group with the following V-Group names for each section for ease of communication: “Law 118 (indicate section)”
-
All classes are to be conducted face-to-face. In case of holidays or other events which prevent the conduct of classes, the class is responsible for designating the proposed day and hour of the make-up class.
-
All modules will need a projector; make sure that the projector and microphone are ready before the class starts including a MacAir adapter (available in the OCS).
-
Prepare a seating arrangement in a short folder with clear updated photos.