Gloria Aguirre v.

DOJ
March 3, 2008
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Arrests
DOCTRINE:

G.R. No. 170723

Chico-Nazario, J.

FACTS:
Pedro and Lourdes Aguirre are the adoptive parents of Larry
In a psychiatry report by Dr. Pascual, Larry was deemed to have a mild mental
deficiency because an abortion was attempted when he was young.
o At age 3-4, he can only crawl on his tummy like a frog
o He did not utter his first word until he was 3; he did not speak in sentences until
he was 6
In the same Psychiatry report, Lourdes Aguirre, was also diagnosed of suffering from
Bipolar Mood Disorder and was found to physically maltreat Larry
Pedro Aguirre wanted him vasectomized when he was 24.
Based on the strength of the psychiatry report, Dr. Agatep deemed Pedros written
consent sufficient to proceed with the surgery.
A bilateral vasectomy was performed on Larry.
Gloria Aguirre, respondents eldest child, filed a criminal complaint against the Pedro
Aguirre, Dr. Pascual, Dr. Agatep, and one of her sisters (Michelina Aguirre-Olondriz) for:
o Mutilation
o Falsification of the psychiatry report because consent was not given by Larry to
the Vasectomy nor was he consulted on said operation and that her mother was
diagnosed of suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder without being personally
interviewed
Assistant City Prosecutor found no probable cause to hold respondents liable for the
complaint of falsification and mutilation.
o NO FALSIFICATION The psychiatry report is precisely to determine whether
Larry is mentally sound to give consent. The psychiatry report also didnt allege
that Dr. Pascual personally diagnosed Lourdes Aguirre. She can be wrong in her
diagnosis but she didnt lie about anything.
o NO MUTILATION The vasectomy operation did not deprive Larry of his
reproductive organ. The operation is reversible and therefore cannot be the
permanent damage contemplated under Art. 262, RPC
DOJ Secretary dismissed Glorias appeal.
CA also dismissed Glorias petition for certiorari.
ISSUES: Did the City prosecutor commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Glorias
complaint? NO.
HELD:

CLYDE TAN

CASE #XX

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
The term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty.
It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief; that is, the belief that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A finding of probable cause
merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
The determination of whether or not probable cause exists to warrant the prosecution in
court of an accused is consigned and entrusted to the DOJ. And by the nature of his
office, a public prosecutor is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information
where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that
the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion.
This Court has consistently adhered to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of
preliminary investigations, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude
of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish
probable cause for the filing of an information against the supposed offender.
But this is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the
prosecutor. It is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor may erroneously
exercise the discretion lodged in him by law. This, however, does not render his act
amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent
any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION
No falsification
o Acts complained of do not fall under any of the 8 enumerated acts in Art. 171
RPC
o The reason for having Larry psychiatrically evaluated was precisely to ascertain
whether or not he can validly consent with impunity to the proposed vasectomy,
o That Larrys consent to be vasectomized was not obtained by the psychiatrist
was of no moment, because nowhere is it stated in said report that such assent
was obtained.
o The fact that Dra. Pascual cited finding, which is not of her own personal
knowledge in her report does not mean that she committed falsification in the
process. Her sources may be wrong and may affect the veracity of her report, but
for as long as she has not alleged therein that she personally diagnosed Lourdes
Aguirre, which allegation would not then be true, she cannot be charged of
falsification.
No Mutilation
o Though undeniably, vasectomy denies a man his power of reproduction, such
procedure does not deprive him, either totally or partially, of some essential
organ for reproduction.

CLYDE TAN

CASE #XX