G.R. No. 184535 , September 3, 2019
Sister Pilar Versoza, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz, Pedro Aguirre, and Dr. Marissa Pascual, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sister Pilar Versoza, Nursery Supervisor of Heart of Mary Villa, filed criminal charges against respondents (adoptive father Pedro Aguirre, his daughter Michelina, and Dr. Marissa Pascual) concerning Laureano “Larry” Aguirre. Larry, diagnosed with Mild Mental Deficiency, was under the guardianship of spouses Pedro and Lourdes Aguirre. In January 2002, upon Pedro’s instruction and after a psychiatric clearance from Dr. Pascual, Larry underwent a bilateral vasectomy. Versoza charged respondents with Falsification, Mutilation, and Child Abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610). The Office of the City Prosecutor initially dismissed all charges but later revived the child abuse charge. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, citing a violation of respondents’ due process rights due to the revival of previously dismissed charges and Versoza’s lack of standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, petitioner Versoza died.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition should be dismissed on the ground of mootness due to the supervening death of the petitioner and the absence of a justiciable controversy.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the Separate Opinion of Justice Caguioa, voted to DISMISS the Petition solely on the ground of mootness. The supervening death of petitioner Versoza, coupled with the inaction of the Office of the Solicitor General to pursue an appeal, removed any live justiciable controversy, rendering the resolution of the substantive issues impractical. The Petition was therefore moot and academic.
*Note: The Separate Opinion also addressed, in obiter dictum, the substantive issue of whether the vasectomy constituted child abuse under Section 10(a) of RA 7610. Justice Caguioa took a contrary position to another Justice’s view, concluding that the vasectomy did not constitute cruelty or child abuse. He found no evidence that respondents acted with the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean Larry’s intrinsic worth. Instead, the act appeared borne out of care and love, considering Larry’s mental condition, his inability to care for himself or a potential child, and the adoptive family’s supportive history. Thus, the elements of child abuse under RA 7610 were not met.*