Title
Supreme Court
Aguirre vs. Secretary, Department of Justice
Case
G.R. No. 170723
Decision Date
Mar 3, 2008
A mentally disabled man underwent a vasectomy with guardian consent; sister alleged mutilation and falsification. Courts ruled no mutilation or falsification, upholding dismissal of charges.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226355)

Petitioner

Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre, common-law sister alleging lack of informed consent and unlawful conspiracy to mutilate Larry and to falsify a psychiatric report.

Respondents

  1. Secretary, Department of Justice (DOJ)
  2. Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz (sister)
  3. Pedro B. Aguirre (guardian/father)
  4. Dr. Juvido Agatep (urologist)
  5. Dr. Marissa B. Pascual (psychiatrist)

Key Dates

• June 19, 1986 – RTC appointment of co-guardians over Larry
• January 21, 2002 – Psychiatric report diagnosing mild-moderate retardation
• January 31, 2002 – Vasectomy performed
• January 8, 2003 – OCP Resolution dismissing complaint
• February 11 & November 12, 2004 – DOJ resolutions affirming dismissal
• July 21 & December 5, 2005 – Court of Appeals decision and denial of reconsideration
• March 3, 2008 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990)
• Revised Penal Code: Article 172 (Falsification by private individuals), Article 262 (Mutilation)
• Republic Act No. 7610 (Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court (Certiorari)

Antecedent Facts

Larry was adopted from an orphanage in 1978. Developmental delays prompted a formal guardianship in 1980 and judicial confirmation in 1986. Evaluations in 1989 and 2000 established mild to moderate mental deficiency.

Medical and Psychiatric Evaluation

In January 2002, Dr. Pascual found that Larry lacked capacity to understand risks and that decision-making should rest with his guardians. The psychiatric report detailed his cognitive deficits, dependency for daily living, and absence of violent behavior.

Vasectomy Procedure

Relying on the psychiatric clearance and Pedro Aguirre’s consent as legal guardian, Dr. Agatep performed a bilateral vasectomy on Larry on January 31, 2002.

Criminal Complaint

On June 11, 2002, Gloria Aguirre filed charges for falsification (Article 172) and mutilation (Article 262) in relation to RA 7610, alleging conspiracy, lack of Larry’s consent, non-authorization by the guardianship court, and false statements in the psychiatric report (including misdiagnosis of Lourdes Aguirre).

Respondents’ Defenses

Each respondent denied participation in falsification or mutilation. Olondriz and Pedro Aguirre disputed standing and characterization of vasectomy as mutilation. Drs. Agatep and Pascual invoked professional independence and absence of factual misstatements.

Preliminary Investigation and Dismissal

The Assistant City Prosecutor found no probable cause for falsification—no untruthful statements in the psychiatric report—and no mutilation, as vasectomy did not permanently deprive Larry of any essential reproductive organ. Complaint recommended dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

DOJ Review

Chief State Prosecutor and Secretary of Justice affirmed the dismissal, finding no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in the OCP resolution under Department Circular No. 70 (2000).

Court of Appeals Decision

Under Rule 65, the appellate court denied certiorari relief, affirming that vasectomy is reversible and not “mutilation” and that no grave abuse of discretion occurred in probable-cause determination.

Issue for Supreme Court Review

Whether the DOJ and the Court of Appeals gravely abused discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in upholding the dismissal of criminal charges for falsification and mutilation.

Standard of Review

Probable cause is a reasonable belief, based on facts, that an offense was committed. Courts will not disturb a prosecutor’s finding absent grave abuse of discretion—arbitrary, capricious, or despoti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.