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, a social worker and former guardian, filed a complaint for child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 against the respondents (the parents, Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz and Pedro Aguirre, and the doctor, Dr. Marissa Pascual) for performing a bilateral vasectomy on Laureano “Larry” Aguirre. Larry is a person over eighteen years of age but, due to mental deficiency, is considered a “child” under R.A. No. 7610 as one incapable of fully taking care of or protecting himself. The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, ruling that the vasectomy did not constitute child abuse. During the pendency of the petition for review before the Supreme Court, petitioner Sister Pilar Versoza died.

ISSUE

The primary procedural issue is whether the petition should be dismissed due to the death of the petitioner. The substantive issue is whether the bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 .

RULING

The petition should be dismissed for lack of party due to the death of petitioner Sister Pilar Versoza and the absence of an appeal from the Office of the Solicitor General. However, on the merits, the bilateral vasectomy does not constitute child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 . The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in affirming the dismissal of the complaint for lack of probable cause. The specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child, which is essential for a conviction under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 , was absent. The act was not shown to be motivated by ill will but, as appreciated, was borne out of parental care and love. Furthermore, the vasectomy is a reversible procedure that does not permanently impair reproductive capacity or cause permanent damage, and thus cannot be considered prejudicial to the child’s development.