Professional Documents
Culture Documents
vs.
CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito," defendant-appellant.
The accused, Ceilito Orita alias Lito, was charged with the
crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 83-031-B before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch II, Borongan, Eastern Samar. The
information filed in the said case reads as follows (p. 47, Rollo):
The undersigned Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal upon prior
complaint under oath by the offended party, accuses CEILITO
ORITA alias LITO of the crime of Rape committed as follows:
That on March 20, 1983, at about 1:30 o'clock in the morning
inside a boarding house at Victoria St., Poblacion, Borongan,
Eastern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above named accused with lewd designs and
by the use of a Batangas knife he conveniently provided himself
for the purpose and with threats and intimidation, did, then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Cristina S. Abayan
against her will and without her consent.
Upon being arraigned, the accused entered the plea of not guilty
to the offense charged. After the witnesses for the People
testified and the exhibits were formally offered and admitted,
the prosecution rested its case. Thereafter, the defense opted not
to present any exculpatory evidence and instead filed a Motion
to Dismiss. On August 5, 1985, the trial court rendered its
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 5960, Rollo):
WHEREFORE. the Court being morally certain of the guilt of
accused CEILITO ORITA @ LITO, of the crime of Frustrated
Rape (Art. 335, RPC), beyond reasonable doubt, with the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nightime (sic) with
no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, and considering
the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposes on
accused an imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1)
DAY, PRISION MAYOR, as minimum to TWELVE (12)
YEARS PRISION MAYOR, maximum; to indemnify CRISTINA
S. ABAYAN, the amount of Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to
pay costs.
Not satisfied with the decision, the accused appealed to the
Court of Appeals. On December 29, 1988, the Court of Appeals
rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads (p.
102, Rollo):
WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgment is hereby MODIFIED,
and the appellant found guilty of the crime of rape, and
consequently, sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of
P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
On January 11, 1989, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution
setting aside its December 29, 1988 decision and forwarded the
case to this Court, considering the provision of Section 9,
paragraph 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in conjunction with
Section 17, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1 of the Judiciary Act of
1948.
The antecedent facts as summarized in the People's brief are as
follows (pp. 71-75, Rollo):
Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman
student at the St. Joseph's College at Borongan, Eastern Samar.
Appellant was a Philippine Constabulary (PC) soldier.
RUNNING
AROUND
"TAKBUHAN";
ERROR III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE
ACCUSED TO PAY THE OFFENDED PARTIES,
MARICHELLE G. CARLOS AND HER PARENTS, TOMAS
CARLOS AND BERNARDINE GANLAC CARLOS, THE
SUM OF P50,000.00 AS AND FOR DAMAGES;
ERROR IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CHARGE ALLEGED
IN THE INFORMATION, INSTEAD OF ACQUITTING HIM
WITH COSTS DE OFFICIO. 16
The defense vigorously argues against the probability of the
rape having been committed on two points: 1) The commission
of the crime was impossible, taking place as claimed, in broad
daylight, and 2) there were at least eight persons including
the accused and the complainant on the ground floor where
the rape was supposedly consummated.
The commission of the crime, submits the defense, was
impossible, considering that it was allegedly committed at
noontime, which would have readily exposed the act of rape to
anyone glancing in the direction of the place where the suspect
was abusing the victim.
On the second point, it is contended that the rape could not have
been accomplished with so many persons present in the
apartment. As it was, Ramil and Armando were playing chess
near the front door of the apartment. Also, Linda Ayroso, 29,
married to Armando, and a housewife, was washing laundry in
the kitchen. Furthermore, the accused was cooking lunch also in
the kitchen, and so could not have flitted from the kitchen to his
room to execute his evil design without anyone noticing his
absence.
The defense brings to our attention the physical layout of the
apartment of the accused. The place where the alleged sexual
abuse took place was not even a room, he asserts. The apartment
had neither a door nor walls, and what divided the so-called
room from the living room was a wooden folding divider which
was full of holes, "butas-butas." 17
Finally, the accused assails the lower court's slapping of
damages based on the claims of prosecution witnesses of
suffering mental anguish, moral shock, and a "besmirched
reputation." Since he did not commit the offense attributed to
him, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is unwarranted.
Consequently, he prays he must be exculpated.
We deny the appeal except the amount of the award of damages
which we reduce to P20,000.00 conformably to prevailing
jurisprudence.
We rule that statutory rape had been committed beyond the
shadow of a doubt.
a Yes madam.
q What did he give to you?
a He gave me P2.00, madam.
Court
q Did you accept that P2.00?
Witness
a Yes, your Honor.
Fiscal Salvania
q When you were asked to go inside the higaan of Semion
Mangalino, did you go?
Witness
a Yes, madam.
q Now, when you went inside the higaan, what did he do to
you?
a He inserted one of his fingers in my private part madam.
Fiscal Salvania
q You stated that you were wearing jogging pant?
Witness
a Yes, madam.
q What happened to your jogging pant?
a He first removed my jogging pant, madam.
q After removing your jogging pant, did he removed (sic)
anything in his clothes?
a He did not removed (sic) anything in his clothes madam.
Court
q Beside the jogging pant you are (sic) wearing, were you also
wearing a panty?
Witness
a Yes, your Honor.
Fiscal Salvania
q What happen(ed) to your panty, did he remove?
Witness
a He also removed my panty madam.
Fiscal Salvania
q What did he do with his finger?
Court
She said he inserted.
q Was one of the fingers of the accused inserted in your private
part?
Witness
a Yes, your Honor.
q What did he do?
a He kissed me your Honor.
q Where did he kissed (sic) you?
a In my breast your Honor.
Fiscal Salvania
q Did he remove your T-shirt?
Witness
a No madam.
xxx xxx xxx
Court
q Did Semion Mangalino removed (sic) his pant?
Witness
a He did not removed (sic) his pant your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
q Do you know what is penis?
a Yes, your Honor.
q Did the accused put-out his penis while he was inserting his
finger in your private part and kissing you in the breast?
a He put-out his penis while he was kissing and his one fingers
(sic) inserted in my private part, your Honor.
q What did he do with his penis?
a He is inserting his penis in my private part, your Honor.
Court
q Was the accused able to insert his penis into your private part?
Witness
a He was not able, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
q How do you feel or did you feel pain while the accused was
trying to insert his penis into your private part?
Witness
a I did not feel anything, your Honor.
q Did you feel pain?
a I did not feel anything painful, your Honor.
q Did you saw (sic) the penis of Semion Mangalino?
Marichelle was a Grade I pupil when she was violated. She was
in Grade II when she took the witness stand. In view of her very
tender age and her little formal schooling, it is inconceivable for
Marichelle to concoct a serious charge of rape, and to narrate, in
unhesitating and simple terms, that she had been asked by the
offender to go inside the room; that she was laid down after the
accused had given her P2.00; that he removed her jogging pants
and panty; that the accused kissed her and caressed her breasts,
that "Mang Semion" inserted a finger into her genital, and later
his sexual organ. At age 6, Marichelle would have been one of
those "babes and sucklings" from whose mouths words of praise
should have been perfected, but alas, she was instead compelled
to relate in the presence of people, some of them complete
strangers, in the police precinct and in court, her tragic story.
The heart of the matter is the violation of a child's incapacity to
discern evil from good. As the behavior of the victim towards
the accused during the commission of the crime and her
testimony before police officers and in the court indicate, she
had no awareness of the wrongfulness of the action of the
accused who was old enough to be her grandfather. Her
willingness to lie down on and accept the P2.00 given her by the
accused, whom she looked up to as an elder person, a neighbor,
and a friend of her family, indicate not naivete, but the absolute
trust and confidence of the very young in an older person. She
was incapable of reading malice or evil in his intentions. It is
likely that it was only when she saw how distraught her mother
was at her telling of her story and the flurry of police and
judicial activity stirred up by her narration that her young and
innocent mind was violently exposed to the reality of the
In fine, we hold that the trial court did not commit any
reversible error in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape.
No amount of money can soothe the pain and anguish suffered
by a victim of rape and her family. Still, we cannot impose the
damages of P50,000.00 on the accused. As stated earlier, we
reduce the amount to P20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the appealled decision is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION above indicated.
POPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CESAR ATENTO accused-appellant.
Asked how she felt while she was being raped, the complainant
replied: "Masarap." The trial judge believed her but just the
same convicted the accused-appellant. The case is now before
us.
The complainant is Glenda Aringo, who was sixteen years old at
the time of the alleged offense. She is the neighbor of Cesar
Atento, the herein accused-appellant, a 39-year old store-keeper
with a wife and eight children. Her claim is that Atento raped
her five separate times, the first sometime in April 1986.
She says that on that first occasion she went to Atento's store in
Barangay 18, Minoro, Cabagan, in Legazpi City to buy bread.
Her parents were at work and Atento was alone in his house
except for his three-year old daughter. Glenda claims Atento
cajoled her into coming inside the house and then took her
downstairs, where he succeeded in deflowering her. She says her
maiden head ached and bled. Afterwards, he gave her P5.00.
Glenda speaks of four other times when he raped her. It was
later (presumably because her hymen had healed) that she felt
tickled by his manhood and described the act of coitus as
"masarap."1
The girl says she never told anybody about Atento's attacks on
her because he had threatened her life. But she could not
conceal her condition for long and after five months had to
admit she was pregnant. She revealed the accused-appellant as
the father of the foetus in her womb. The child was delivered on
December 27, 1987, and christened Hubert Buendia Aringo.
Atento denies the charge against him, saying it was pure
harassment concocted by a relative of the girl who wanted to
eject him from the land where his house was erected. Insisting
that Glenda was a girl of loose morals, he says he had twice
seen her in sexual congress with a man and that she had once
offered her body to his thirteen year old son for a fee of P5.00.
Glenda's description of the act of coitus as pleasurable would
have destroyed the whole case against Atento but for one
singular significant fact. The girl is a mental retardate.
Ascendo Belmonte, a clinical psychologist at Don Susano
Rodriguez Memorial Mental Hospital, subjected the girl to a
series of intelligence tests, to wit, the Wecslar adult intelligence
scale, revised beta exam, standard progressive matrices, and the
Bender visual motor gestalt test, with the following findings:
Glenda B. Aringo, who was born on June 18, 1970, is INTER
ALIA with an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine (9)
and twelve (12) years. As such, her intellectual functioning is
within the mentally defective level. Her fund of information is
inadequate, her judgment is unsound, her thinking and working
capacity is poor. She is unable to distinguish essential from nonessential details. Her vocabulary is limited. Her capacity for her
perceptual processes is unsatisfactory. She lacks the capacity for
abstracting and synthesizing concepts. However, in the midst of
all these, Glenda was found capable of telling the truth.2
Benita Aringo, Glenda's mother, testified that her daughter
reached only third grade and did not like to continue studying,
preferring to play with children younger than she, even when
she was already pregnant. After delivering her child, she would
often leave its care to Benita, and play marbles with the children
rather than feed her baby. Another relative, Caridad Aringo,
testified that Glenda had the mentality of a 12-year old and was
fond of rubber bands and playing cards.
The Court finds this to be the reason why, while a rape victim
with normal intelligence, would have said that the attack on her
caused her much physical pain and mental agony, Glenda
naively declared that Atento's sexual organ in hers gave her
much pleasure.
It is worth observing that Glenda's child was born on December,
nine months after her rape in April, and that, according to the
trial judge, there was a remarkable resemblance between Atento
and the boy.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 335. When and how rape committed. Rape is committed
by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though
neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next
preceding paragraphs shall be present.
It has not been clearly established that Atento employed force or
threat against Glenda to make her submit to his lust.
Nevertheless, there is no question that Atento is guilty of rape
upon Glenda under paragraph 2, because the girl was deprived
of reason. Alternatively, he is liable under paragraph 3, because
his victim had the mentality of a girl less than twelve years old
at the time she was raped.
In People v. Atutubo,3 this Court held:
It is not necessary under Article 335 for the culprit to actually
deprive the victim of reason prior to the rape, as by the
administration of drugs or by some other illicit method. Ms
provision also applies to cases where the woman has been
earlier deprived of reason by other causes, as when she is
congenitally retarded or has previously suffered some traumatic
experience that has lowered her mental capacity. In such
situations, the victim is in the same category as a child below 12
years of age for lacking the necessary will to object to the
attacker's lewd intentions.
In People v. Palma,4 where a 14-year old mental retardate was
another rape victim, we held that:
The crime committed by Palma is rape under Article 335(2) of
the Revised Penal Code.1wphi1 Copulation with a woman
known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect
consent is rape. Physical intimidation need not precede sexual
intercourse considering the age, mental abnormality and
deficiency of the complainant.
So also in People v. Sunga,5 where the offended party was 23
years old with the mentality of a child about 8 to 9 years of age:
Because of her mental condition, complainant is incapable of
giving consent to the sexual intercourse. She is in the same class
as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.
Appellant therefore committed rape in having sexual intercourse
with her.
In his authoritative work on Criminal Law, Chief Justice Aquino
explains Paragraph 2 as follows.6
. . . in the rape of a woman deprived of reason or unconscious,
the victim has no will. The absence of will determines the
existence of the rape. Such lack of will may exist not only when
the victim is unconscious or totally deprived of reason, but also
when she is suffering some mental deficiency impairing her
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs.
PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO accused.
On 3 April 1990 this Court in People v. Orita 1 finally did away
with frustrated rape 2 and allowed only attempted rape and
consummated rape to remain in our statute books. The instant
case lurks at the threshold of another emasculation of the stages
of execution of rape by considering almost every attempt at
sexual violation of a woman as consummated rape, that is, if the
contrary view were to be adopted. The danger there is that that
concept may send the wrong signal to every roaming lothario,
whenever the opportunity bares itself, to better intrude with
climactic gusto, sans any restraint, since after all any attempted
fornication would be considered consummated rape and
punished as such. A mere strafing of the citadel of
passion would then be considered a deadly fait accompli, which
is absurd.
In Orita we held that rape was consummated from the moment
the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim since by it he
attained his objective. All the elements of the offense were
already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do,
having performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime
and accomplish it. We ruled then that perfect penetration was
not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male
organ, however slight, was sufficient. The Court further held
that entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, was sufficient
to warrant conviction for consummated rape. We distinguished
consummated rape from attempted rape where there was no
penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution
were performed as the offender merely commenced the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts. 3 The inference
that may be derived therefrom is that complete or full
penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be
consummated. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough
to raise the crime to its consummated stage.
But the Court in Orita clarified the concept of penetration in
rape by requiring entry into the labia or lips of the female organ,
even if there be no rupture of the hymen or laceration of the
vagina, to warrant a conviction for consummated rape. While
the entry of the penis into the lips of the female organ was
considered synonymous with mere touching of the external
genitalia, e.g., labia majora, labia minora, etc., 4 the crucial
doctrinal bottom line is that touching must be inextricably
viewed in light of, in relation to, or as an essential part of, the
process of penile penetration, and not just mere touching in the
ordinary sense. In other words, the touching must be tacked to
the penetration itself. The importance of the requirement of
penetration, however slight, cannot be gainsaid because where
entry into the labia or the lips of the female genitalia has not
been established, the crime committed amounts merely to
attempted rape.
Verily, this should be the indicium of the Court in determining
whether rape has been committed either in its attempted or in its
consummated stage; otherwise, no substantial distinction would
exist between the two, despite the fact that penalty-wise, this
distinction, threadbare as it may seem, irrevocably spells the
difference between life and death for the accused a reclusive
life that is not even perpetua but only temporal on one hand,
and the ultimate extermination of life on the other. And, arguing
on another level, if the case at bar cannot be deemed attempted
GLORIA
PILAR
S.
AGUIRRE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
MICHELINA S. AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B.
AGUIRRE, DR. JUVIDO AGATEP and DR. MARISSA B.
PASCUAL, respondents.
In this petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, as amended, petitioner Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre
(Gloria Aguirre) seeks the reversal of the 21 July 2005
Decision2 and 5 December 2005 Resolution,3 both of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88370, entitled "Gloria Pilar S.
Aguirre v. Secretary of the Department of Justice, Michelina S.
Aguirre-Olondriz, Dr. Juvido Agatep, Dra. Marissa B. Pascual,
Pedro B. Aguirre and John and Jane Does."
The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) when
the latter issued the twin resolutions dated 11 February
20044 and 12 November 2004,5 respectively, which in turn
affirmed the 8 January 2003 Resolution 6 of the Office of the
City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City.
The Assistant City Prosecutor for the OCP of Quezon City
recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint, docketed
as I.S. No. 02-12466, for violation of Articles 172 (Falsification
by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Documents) and 262
(Mutilation), both of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to
Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as "Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act," for insufficiency of
evidence.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by petitioner Gloria
Aguirre against respondents Pedro B. Aguirre (Pedro Aguirre),
Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz (Olondriz), Dr. Juvido Agatep
(Dr. Agatep), Dr. Marissa B. Pascual (Dr. Pascual) and several
John/Jane Does for falsification, mutilation and child abuse.
The antecedents of the present petition are:
Laureano "Larry" Aguirre7 used to be a charge of the Heart of
Mary Villa, a child caring agency run by the Good Shepherd
Sisters and licensed by the Department of Social Work and
Development (DSWD). Sometime in 1978, respondent Pedro
Aguirre; the latter's spouse, Lourdes S. Aguirre (Lourdes
Aguirre); and their four daughters, who included petitioner
Gloria Aguirre and respondent Olondriz, came to know Larry,
who was then just over a year old. The Aguirres would have
Larry spend a few days at their home and then return him to the
orphanage thereafter. In June 1980, Larry, then two years and
nine months of age, formally became the ward of respondent
Pedro Aguirre and his spouse Lourdes Aguirre by virtue of
an Affidavit of Consent to Legal Guardianship executed in their
favor by Sister Mary Concepta Bellosillo, Superior of the Heart
of Mary Villa. On 19 June 1986, the Aguirre spouses'
guardianship of Larry was legalized when the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 3 of Balanga, Bataan, duly appointed them
as joint co-guardians over the person and property of Larry.
As Larry was growing up, the Aguirre spouses and their children
noticed that his developmental milestones were remarkably
delayed. His cognitive and physical growth did not appear
normal in that "at age 3 to 4 years, Larry could only crawl on his
tummy like a frog x x x;"8 he did not utter his first word until he
was three years of age; did not speak in sentences until his sixth
year; and only learned to stand up and walk after he turned five
years old. At age six, the Aguirre spouses first enrolled Larry at
the Colegio de San Agustin, Dasmarias Village, but the child
experienced significant learning difficulties there. In 1989, at
age eleven, Larry was taken to specialists for neurological and
psychological evaluations. The psychological evaluation9 done
on Larry revealed the latter to be suffering from a mild mental
Marissa
Psychiatrist12
B.
Pascual,
M.D.
xxxx
5. In any case, as I did not perform the vasectomy, I can state
with complete confidence that I did not participate in any way in
the alleged mutilation.
6. Neither did I procure or solicit the services of the physician
who performed the vasectomy, Dr. Juvido Agatep x x x. It was
my father, Pedro Aguirre, Larry's guardian, who obtained his
services. I merely acted upon his instructions and accompanied
my brother to the physician, respondents Dra. Marissa B.
Pascual x x x.
xxxx
10. Neither does the Complaint explain in what manner the
Complainant is authorized or has any standing to declare that
Larry's consent was not obtained. Complainant is not the
guardian or relative of Larry. While she argues that Larry's
consent should have been obtained the Complaint does not
dispute the psychiatrist's findings about Larry's inability to give
consent.
xxxx
13. x x x the Complaint does not even state what alleged
participation was falsified or the portion of the psychiatric report
that allegedly states that someone participated when in fact that
person did not so participate.
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
17. x x x the Complaint does not dispute that he (Larry) is
mentally deficient or incompetent to give consent.
xxxx
19. x x x I verified that the effect of a vasectomy operation was
explained to him (Larry) by both respondent doctors.
20. x x x I accompanied Larry and obeyed my father on the
belief that my father continues to be the legal guardian of Larry.
I know of no one else who asserts to be his legal guardian x x
x.15
Alleging the same statement of facts and defenses, respondent
Pedro Aguirre argues against his complicity in the crime of
mutilation as charged and asserts that:
5. In any case, as I did not perform the vasectomy, I can state
with complete confidence that I did not participate in any way in
the alleged mutilation.16
Nevertheless, he maintains that the vasectomy performed on
Larry does not in any way amount to mutilation, as the latter's
reproductive organ is still completely intact.17 In any case,
respondent Pedro Aguirre explains that the procedure performed
is reversible through another procedure called Vasovasostomy,
to wit:
xxxx
xxxx
16. x x x I had no participation in the preparation of the report of
Dra. Pascual. She arrived at her report independently, using her
own professional judgment x x x.
xxxx
31. What I cannot understand about Petita's Complaint is how
Larry is argued to be legally a child under the definition of one
law but nonetheless and simultaneously argued to be capacitated
to give his consent as fully as an adult.18
Respondent Pedro Aguirre further clarifies that co-guardianship
over Larry had been granted to himself and his wife, Lourdes
Aguirre, way back on 19 June 1986 by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 3 of Balanga, Bataan. Respondent Pedro Aguirre
contends that being one of the legal guardians, consequently,
parental authority over Larry is vested in him. But assuming for
the sake of argument that Larry does have the capacity to make
the decision concerning his vasectomy, respondent Pedro
Aguirre argues that petitioner Gloria Aguirre has no legal
personality to institute the subject criminal complaint, for only
Larry would have the right to do so.
Just as the two preceding respondents did, respondent Dr.
Agatep also disputed the allegations of facts stated in the
Complaint. Adopting the allegations of his co-respondents
insofar as they were material to the charges against him, he
vehemently denied failing to inform Larry of the intended
procedure. In his counter-statement of facts he averred that:
(b) x x x I scheduled Larry for consultative interview x x x
wherein I painstakingly explained what vasectomy is and the
consequences thereof; but finding signs of mental deficiency, x
x x I advised his relatives and his nurse who accompanied him
to have Larry examined by a psychiatrist who could properly
determine whether or not Larry x x x can really give his consent,
thus I required them to secure first a psychiatric evaluation and
clearance prior to the contemplated procedure.
(c) On January 21, 2002, I was furnished a copy of a psychiatric
report prepared by Dr. Marissa Pascual x x x. In her said report,
Dr. Pascual found Larry to suffer from "mental retardation, mild
to moderate type" and further stated that "at his capacity, he may
never understand the nature, the foreseeable risks and benefits
and consequences of the procedure (vasectomy) x x x, thus the
responsibility of decision making may be given to his parent or
guardian x x x."
(d) x x x I was likewise furnished a copy of an affidavit
executed by Pedro Aguirre stating that he was the legal guardian
of Larry x x x Pedro Aguirre gave his consent to vasectomize
Larry x x x.
(e) Only then, specifically January 31, 2002, vasectomy was
performed with utmost care and diligence.19
xxxx