Aguirre v Secretary of Justice

Aguirre v Secretary of Justice

Petitioner: Gloria Pilar Aguirre Respon Responden dent: t: Secret Secretary ary of the Depart Departmen mentt of Justic Justice, e, Michel Michelina ina Ag Aguir uirrereOlondriz, Pedro Aguirre, Dr. Agatep, Dr. Pascual Relevant Laws: The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depr depriv ivin ing g him, him, eith either er tota totall lly y or part partia iall lly, y, of some some esse essent ntia iall orga organ n for reproduction reproduction

Art. 262 Mutilation Mutilation

Facts: •

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

Laureano (Larry) Aguirre was adopted from an orphanage by Pedro Aguirre and Lourdes Aguirre Developmental milestones were noted to be delayed. He started to walk and speak  a single word at around age 5. He was enrolled in Colegio de San Agustin at age 6 where he showed significant learning difficulties that he had to repeat 1st and 4th grades. Psychological evaluation revealed mild to moderate mental retardation, special education training was advised and he was transferred to St. John Marie Vianney Pedro Aguirre (Larry’s guardian) wanted to have him sterilized and approached Dr Agatep to perform the procedure Dr Pascual conducted tests on Larry to ascertain whether he could validly give his consent to the operation The findings concluded that the responsibility of making the decision may be given to his parent or guardian Dr Agatep gave Larry a vasectomy with consent of Pedro Aguirre Petitioner Gloria Aguirre (common law sister) charged respondents for mutilation Gloria Gloria Aguirre Aguirre contended contended that that the bilat bilateral eral vasectomy vasectomy conduct conducted ed on petitioner petitioner's 's  brother, Larry Aguirre, caused the perpetual destruction of Larry's reproductive or  gans gans of generat generation ion or concept conception ion and that that it was perfor performed med intent intentiona ionall lly y and deliberately to deprive Larry forever of his reproductive organ and his capacity to  procreate, thus, it amounted to mutilation

•

Issues: • WON the respondents are liable for the crime of mutilation Held: •

No, they are not liable for mutilation

Ratio: •

 The vasectomy operation did not in any way deprived Larry of his reproductive reproductive organ which is still very much part of his physical self 

•

•

•

•

In male sterilization procedure of vasectomy, the tubular passage, called the vas deferens, through which the sperm cells are transported from the testicle to the urethra where they combine with the seminal fluid to form the ejaculant, is divided and the cut ends merely tied  The vas deferens, is merely a passageway that is part of the duct system of the male reproductive organ  The ordinary usage of the term mutilation is the deprivation of a li mb or essential part of the body  Th e bi la tera l va se ct omy do ne on Lar ry co ul d not hav e amounted to the crime of mutilation as defined and punished under Article 262, paragraph 1, of th e Re vi se d Pe na l Co de