Case Digest (G.R. No. 170723)
Facts:
Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre v. Secretary of the Department of Justice, G.R. No. 170723, March 03, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre filed this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari contesting the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of Department of Justice (DOJ) resolutions that upheld the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City’s dismissal of her criminal complaint.Petitioner charged respondents Pedro B. Aguirre, Michelina S. Aguirre‑Olondriz, Dr. Juvido Agatep, and Dr. Marissa B. Pascual with falsification (Art. 172, R.P.C.), mutilation (Art. 262, R.P.C.) and violations of Republic Act No. 7610 stemming from a bilateral vasectomy performed on Laureano Larry Aguirre (Larry), who had been under the Aguirre spouses’ guardianship since childhood and had documented mild to moderate mental deficiency. Dr. Pascual prepared a psychiatric report (21 Jan 2002) concluding that Larry might not understand the nature and consequences of vasectomy and recommending decision‑making be left to his guardian; relying on that, respondent Pedro Aguirre gave consent and Dr. Agatep performed the vasectomy on 31 Jan 2002.
The complaint (I.S. No. 02‑12466) was filed before the OCP of Quezon City on 11 June 2002. After investigation the Assistant City Prosecutor recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence in an 8 January 2003 resolution, finding no probable cause for falsification or mutilation; the dispositive recommended dismissal. Petitioner appealed to the DOJ Secretary; Chief State Prosecutor Zuno dismissed the appeal in a Resolution dated 11 February 2004 and denied reconsideration on 12 November 2004, invoking Department Circular No. 70 (Sec. 12 in relation to Sec. 7) and finding no reversible error.
Petitioner then filed a Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals challenging the DOJ’s resolutions; the Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the DOJ in a 21 July 2005 Decision (and denied reconsideration on 5 December 2005). Petitioner brought the present Rule 45 petition to the Sup...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary of the Department of Justice and the Office of the City Prosecutor commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding no probable cause to prosecute respondents?
- Does a bilateral vasectomy constitute the crime of mutilation under Article 262 of the Revised Penal Code?
- Did Dr. Pascual’s psychiatric report (and respondents’ reliance on it) amount to falsification of a private document under Articl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)