Aguirre vs.

Secretary of Justice
FACTS:
On June 11,2002 petitioner Gloria Aguirre instituted a criminal complaint for the
violation of Revised Penal Code particularly Articles 172 and 262, both in relation to
Republic Act No.7610 against respondents Pedro Aguirre, Olondriz,Dr. Agatep, Dr.
Pascual and several John/Jane Doe alleging that John/Jane Doe upon the apparent
instructions of respondents Michelina Aguirre-Olondriz and Pedro Aguirre actually
scouted, prospected, facilitated solicited and/or procured the medical services of
respondents Dr. Pascual and Dr. Agatep on the intended mutilation via bilateral
vasectomy of Laureano Aguirre Olondriz denied that the prospected, scouted,
facilitated, solicited and/or procured any false statement mutilatedor abused his
common law brother, Laureano Aguirre. She further contends that his common law
brother went through avasectomy procedure but that does not amount to
mutilation.Dr. Agatep contends that the complainant has no legal personality to file
a case since she is only a common lawsister of Larry who has a legal guardian in the
person of Pedro Aguirre. He further contends that Vasectomy does not inany way
equate to castration and what is touched in vasectomy is not considered an organ in
the context of law andmedicine.The Assistant City Prosecutor held that the facts
alleged did not amount to mutilation, the vasectomy operation did not deprived
Larry of his reproductive organ Gloria Aguirre then appealed to the Secretary of the
DOJ but Chief State Prosecutor dismissed the petition stating that the Secretary of
Justice may motu propio dismiss outright the petition if there is no showing of any
reversible error inthe questioned resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are liable for the crime of mutilation
RULING:
No, the court held that Article 262 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:
Art. 262.
Mutilation.
The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or
partially, of some essential organ for reproduction. Any other intentional mutilation
shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. A
straightforward scrutiny of the above provision shows that the elements of
mutilation under the first paragraph of Art.262 of the Revised Penal Code to be 1)
that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation;
and 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive
the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction. According to the public

prosecutor, the facts alleged did not amount to the crime of mutilation as defined
and penalized above, i.e.,[t]he vasectomy operation did not in any way deprived
Larry of his reproductive organ, which is still very much part of his physical self
People vs. Erinia
People v. Julian Erinia

Facts: The defendant Julian Erinia alleged to have carnal intercourse with the victim
who was 3 years and 11 months old. but there may be some doubt whether he
succeeded in penetrating the vagina before being disturbed by the timely
intervention of the mother and the sister of the child .The physician who examined
the genital organ of the child a few hours after the commission of the crime found a
slight inflammation of the exterior parts of the organ, indicating that an effort had
been made to enter the vagina, but in testifying before the court he expressed
doubts as to whether the entry had been effected. The mother of the child testified
that she found its genital organ covered with a sticky substance, but that cannot be
considered conclusive evidence of penetration.
Issue: WON the defendant is guilty of the crime of rape.

Ruling: It has been suggested that the child was of such tender age that penetration
was impossible; that the crime of rape consequently was impossible of
consummation; and that, therefore, the offense committed should be treated only
as abusos deshonestos. We do not think so. It is probably true that a complete
penetration was impossible, but such penetration is not essential to the commission
of the crime; it is sufficient if there is a penetration of the labia. In the case of Kenny
vs. State, where the offended party was a child of the age of 3 years and 8 months
the testimony of several physicians was to the effect that her labia of the privates of
a child of that age can be entered by a man's male organ to the hymen and the
defendant was found guilty of the consummated crime rape. There being no
conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended party, the
defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and can only be found guilty of
frustrated rape, but in view of the fact that he was living in the house of the
parents of the child as their guest, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence existed and the penalty must therefore be imposed in its maximum
degree. The judgment appealed from is modified and the defendant-appellant is
hereby found guilty of the crime of frustrated rape and is sentenced to suffer twelve
years of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and with the
costs in both instances.