Gloria Aguirre v. DOJ G.R. No.

170723
March 3, 2008 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 said to be suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder (from
statement of Michelina Aguirre – Olondriz) 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 Pedro’s written consent (parents, guardians
or individuals with parental authority over the patient) 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) (11 June 2002) 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 (8 January 2003).
o NO FALSIFICATION – The psychiatry report is precisely to determine whether Larry is mentally sound
to give consent. The psychiatry report also didn’t allege that Dr. Pascual personally diagnosed Lourdes
Aguirre. She can be wrong in her diagnosis but she didn’t 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 Gloria’s appeal-petition for review(appealed: 18 February 2003, resolution-dismissal:
11 February 2004).
 Petitioner Gloria Aguirres Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality by the DOJ in another Resolution
dated 12 November 2004.
 CA also dismissed Gloria’s petition for certiorari- petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule
65 (resolution-dismissal: 21 July 2005).
 Petitioner Gloria Aguirres motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated
5 December 2005.
 Petitioner filed a petition under Rule 45 in SC

ISSUES:
Whether or not CA and DOJ commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’s complaint
Petitioner’s contention:
the Court of Appeals and the DOJ failed to appreciate several important facts:
1) that bilateral vasectomy conducted on petitioners brother, Larry Aguirre, was admitted;
2) that the procedure caused the perpetual destruction of Larrys reproductive organs of generation or
conception;
3) that the bilateral vasectomy was intentional and deliberate to deprive Larry forever of his reproductive
organ and his capacity to procreate; and
4) that respondents, in conspiracy with one another, made not only one but two (2) untruthful statements,
and not mere inaccuracies when they made it appear in the psychiatry report that a) Larrys consent
was obtained or at the very least that the latter was informed of the intended vasectomy; and b) that
Lourdes Aguirre was likewise interviewed and evaluated.

Respondents’ contention:
1.) there was no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for the crimes complained
HELD:

No, CA ad DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s complaint.

 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.

Note (from Nochura):

c) A preliminary investigation is essentially an inquiry to determine whether (1) a crime has been
committed, and (2) whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. The public prosecutor
determines during the preliminary investigation whether probable cause exists; thus the decision whether
or not to dismiss the criminal complaint depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor. Courts will not
interfere with the conduct of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation or in the determination of what
constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against the offender
[Baviera v. Paglinawan, G.R. No. 168580, February 8, 2007]. In Sanrio Company v. Lim, G.R. No. 168380,
February 8, 2008, the Supreme Court reiterated the policy of non-interference with executive discretion in
the determination of probable cause. It held that a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion
in the conduct of preliminary investigation.

i) The possible exception to this rule of non-interference, as held in Aguirre v. Secretary of Justice, G.R.
No. 170723, March 3, 2008, is where there is an unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public prosecutor. Such grave abuse of discretion will
then justify judicial intrusion into the precincts of the executive.

 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 Larry’s 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.