G.R. No. 184535 - SISTER PILAR VERSOZA, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MICHELINA S. AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO AGUIRRE, AND DR. MARISSA PASCUAL.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, an Information was filed against Pedro, Michelina, and Dr. Pascual for violation of Republic Act No. 7610. The case was subsequently raffled off to Branch 102 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Warrants of arrest were issued against the accused, who then posted their respective bail bonds. [33] Pedro and Michelina respectively moved for the dismissal of the case and for the re-determination of probable cause. Dr. Pascual filed several motions seeking the quashal of the information and warrant of arrest and the disqualification of the private prosecutor. In addition, Pedro and Michelina filed a motion requesting a stipulation from the trial prosecutor if she intended to prosecute the case under Republic Act No. 7610 considering that the matter had been previously decided by the Department of Justice and was under the review of the Court of Appeals. [34] On November 8, 2005, the Regional Trial Court issued an Order [35] dismissing the case as there was "no probable cause ... to hold the accused for trial for violation[s] of Sections 3 and 10 of [Republic Act No.] 7610[.]" [36] In the Order, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court declared: As to the first issue of whether or not the case should be dismissed, the Court finds merit to grant the motion. After a careful re-evaluation and scrutiny of the records of the case, the Court is inclined to reverse its former Order dated August 26, 2005, finding the existence of probable cause to hold the accused for trial. It was only later after the Court made a determination of probable cause that the supporting documents were attached to the records of the case particularly the Resolution of the Prosecutor's Office dated August 26, 2003 dismissing the Complaint for violation of RA 7610. Further, the Court was not aware that there was already a Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals dismissing the Complaint for falsification and mutilation against the accused because the same evidence was only attached to the records during the filing of the motions of the parties. In the said Decision, bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry does not constitute mutilation, the same issue being raised in the instant case for violation of RA 7610 as bilateral vasectomy has never been a crime and cannot be considered a form of child abuse. It does not find print in the said law. At most, it is a widely accepted and recognized medical procedure. After going through re-evaluation of the records and evidence of the case, the Court finds merit to re-determine the existence of probable cause. . . . . In the case at bar, there was already a pronouncement made by the Court of Appeals, which was learned by this Court only after it made a prior determination of probable cause, that there was neither a case of falsification nor mutilation. This stands to reason that the Court was misled by the circumstances surrounding the case for the determination of probable cause. Had it known that there was already contradictor