aguirre v secretary of justice

Upload: kacel-castro

Post on 31-Oct-2015

369 views

Category:

Documents


10 download

DESCRIPTION

hkhk

TRANSCRIPT

Aguirre v Secretary of Justice

Aguirre v Secretary of Justice

Petitioner: Gloria Pilar Aguirre

Respondent: Secretary of the Department of Justice, Michelina Aguirre-Olondriz, Pedro Aguirre, Dr. Agatep, Dr. PascualRelevant Laws:

Art. 262 Mutilation The penalty ofreclusion temporalto reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another bydepriving him, either totally or partially, of someessential organ forreproductionFacts:

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 tomoderate mental retardation, special education training wasadvised and hewastransferred toSt.JohnMarieVianney

Pedro Aguirre (Larrys 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

PetitionerGloriaAguirre (common law sister)chargedrespondentsfor mutilation

GloriaAguirre contendedthatthebilateralvasectomyconductedonpetitioner's brother,LarryAguirre,causedtheperpetualdestructionofLarry'sreproductiveorgans ofgeneration or conception and that it was performed intentionally 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 organ which is still very much part of his physical self In male sterilizationprocedureofvasectomy,thetubularpassage, calledthevasdeferens,through which the sperm cells are transported from the testicle to theurethra 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 theterm mutilation is the deprivation of a limb or essential part of the body The bilateral vasectomy done on Larry could not have amounted to the crime of mutilation as defined and punished under Article 262, paragraph 1, ofthe Revised Penal Code