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

Laureano “Larry” Aguirre, a ward of the Heart of Mary Villa, was placed under the legal guardianship of spouses Pedro and Lourdes Aguirre in 1980. A court appointed them as his legal guardians in 1986. Larry had cognitive disabilities, diagnosed with mild mental deficiency. In 2001, when Larry was 24 years old, his legal guardians decided he should undergo a bilateral vasectomy. A psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Marissa Pascual concluded that due to his mental deficiency, the responsibility for decision-making could be given to his parent or guardian. Based on this and the written consent of legal guardian Pedro Aguirre, Dr. Juvido Agatep performed the vasectomy on January 31, 2002.
Two criminal cases arose from this procedure. The first, filed by Gloria Aguirre (Pedro’s daughter), was dismissed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 170723 (Aguirre v. Secretary of the Department of Justice) on March 3, 2008. The second case is the present Petition. Sister Pilar Versoza, a former nursery supervisor at Heart of Mary Villa, filed a criminal complaint against Pedro Aguirre, his daughter Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz, Dr. Pascual, and Dr. Agatep for falsification, mutilation under the Revised Penal Code, and child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Office of the City Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaint but later, upon motion for reconsideration, filed an Information for violation of Sections 3 and 10 of R.A. No. 7610 against Pedro, Michelina, and Dr. Pascual. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Sister Versoza filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. During its pendency, Sister Pilar Versoza passed away on March 19, 2017.

ISSUE

1. Whether the death of petitioner Sister Pilar Versoza extinguished the criminal action.
2. Whether the act of subjecting a 24-year-old person with cognitive disability to a bilateral vasectomy, upon the decision and consent of his legal guardians but without his personal consent, constitutes child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 .

RULING

1. Yes, the death of the petitioner extinguished the criminal action. A petitioner’s demise extinguishes his or her legal capacity, warranting the dismissal of any pending pleadings. Furthermore, in a criminal action, a private complainant acts merely as a witness whose interest is limited to civil liability. The criminal aspect is pursued by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General or other authorized persons. The criminal action cannot prosper without action on the part of the State. In this case, the Information was filed based on the complaint of the deceased Sister Versoza. The State, through the public prosecutor, did not appeal the dismissal of the case by the lower courts. The OSG, representing the People of the Philippines as a respondent, even moved for the dismissal of the Petition, arguing that the death of the private complainant rendered the petition moot and academic. Therefore, with no active participation from the State to pursue the criminal action, the Petition was dismissed.
2. The Court did not rule on the substantive issue. Given the resolution of the first issue regarding the effect of the petitioner’s death, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to rule on the substantive question of whether the vasectomy constituted child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 . The Petition was dismissed due to the extinction of the criminal action following the death of the private complainant and the lack of state initiative to continue the prosecution.