THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. JUAN BOGEL, (alias CATALIN) ET AL., defendants-appellants. G. E. Campbell for appellants.

Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee. CARSON, J.: The guilt of the accused of the crime of robbery with which they were charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It was further proven that one of the accused, on the occasion of the robbery, stabbed a woman named Fabiana in one eye, and that as a result of the wound thus inflicted she lost the use of the eye. The trial court imposed the penalty prescribed in paragraph 2 of article 50 of the !enal "ode, but we are of opinion that the penalty which should have been imposed is that prescribed in paragraph of said article. !aragraphs 2 and of article 50 are as follows#

$ne guilty of robbery with violence or intimidation to the person will be punished# %%% %%% %%%

2. &ith cadena temporal in its medium degree to cadena perpetua when the robbery was accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or when for the purpose of or on occasion of the robbery any wounds are inflicted which are penali'ed in paragraph ( of article )(* of the !enal "ode, or when the person who was robbed was held prisoner for ransom or period longer than one day. . &ith cadena temporal when the purpose of or on occasion of the robbery any of the wounds are inflicted which are penali'ed in paragraph 2 of article )(* of the !enal "ode. !aragraphs ( and 2 of article )(* of the !enal "ode provide that he wounds, stri+es, or maltreats another will be punished for the crime of grave in,uries. (. &ith prision mayor if as a result of the wounds the offended person became an imbecile, impotent, or blind. 2. &ith prision correccional in its medium and ma%imum degrees if as a result of the wounds the offended person lost an eye or some principal member, or has been incapacitated or unfitted for the wor+ in which prior thereto he was habitually engaged. -nless the putting out of an eye by stabbing is a mutilation in the sense in which this word is used in the above set out paragraph 2 of article 50 , it is manifest that the penalty to be imposed in this case is that prescribed in paragraph and not paragraph 2 of said article. .iada, in his commentary on article )(5, which penali'es intentional mutilations, points out that by mutilation /mutilacion0 is understood, according to the Diccionario de la lengua, the lopping or clipping off /cercenamiento0 of some part of the body, and it is evident that the putting out of an eye does not fall under this definition. The commission of the offense was mar+ed with the aggravating circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (5, 20, and 1 of article (0 of the !enal "ode, the robbery having ta+en place at night and in the house of the offended party, and the robbers having disguised themselves for the purpose of committing the crime with greater security to themselves. The penalty which should be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the above-cited paragraph of article 50 of the !enal "ode is that of cadena temporal in its ma%imum degree, which was the penalty imposed by the trial ,udge, he not having ta+en into consideration the above-cited aggravating circumstances and imposed the penalty prescribed in paragraph 2 of article 50 in its medium degree.

The sentence of the trial court should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. 2fter e%piration of ten days let ,udgment be entered in accordance herewith and in due time thereafter the record remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. 3o ordered. Arellano, C.J., orres, !apa, "illard and racey, JJ., concur.

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHELINA S. AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JU IDO AGATEP a!" DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, respondents. 45"I3I$6 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.# In this petition for review on certiorari( under 7ule )5 of the 7ules of "ourt, as amended, petitioner 8loria !ilar 3. 2guirre /8loria 2guirre0 see+s the reversal of the 2( 9uly 2005 4ecision2 and 5 4ecember 2005 7esolution, both of the "ourt of 2ppeals in "2-8.7. 3! 6o. 11 :0, entitled ;Gloria #ilar S. Aguirre $. Secretary of the Department of Justice, !ichelina S. Aguirre-Olondri%, Dr. Ju$ido Agatep, Dra. !arissa &. #ascual, #edro &. Aguirre and John and Jane Does.; The "ourt of 2ppeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the 3ecretary of the 4epartment of 9ustice /4$90 when the latter issued the twin resolutions dated (( February 200)) and (2 6ovember 200),5 respectively, which in turn affirmed the 1 9anuary 200 7esolution* of the $ffice of the "ity !rosecutor /$"!0 of <ue'on "ity. The 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor for the $"! of <ue'on "ity recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint, doc+eted as I.3. 6o. 02-(2)**, for violation of 2rticles (:2 /Falsification by !rivate Individuals and -se of Falsified 4ocuments0 and 2*2 /=utilation0, both of the 7evised !enal "ode, in relation to 7epublic 2ct 6o. :*(0, otherwise +nown as ;Child Abuse, E'ploitation and Discrimination Act,; for insufficiency of evidence. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by petitioner 8loria 2guirre against respondents !edro >. 2guirre /!edro 2guirre0, =ichelina 3. 2guirre-$londri' /$londri'0, 4r. 9uvido 2gatep /4r. 2gatep0, 4r. =arissa >. !ascual /4r. !ascual0 and several 9ohn?9ane 4oes for falsification, mutilation and child abuse. The antecedents of the present petition are# @aureano ;@arry; 2guirre: used to be a charge of the Aeart of =ary .illa, a child caring agency run by the 8ood 3hepherd 3isters and licensed by the 4epartment of 3ocial &or+ and 4evelopment /43&40. 3ometime in (B:1, respondent !edro 2guirreC the latterDs spouse, @ourdes 3. 2guirre /@ourdes 2guirre0C and their four daughters, who included petitioner 8loria 2guirre and respondent $londri', came to +now @arry, who was then ,ust over a year old. The 2guirres would have @arry spend a few days at their home and then return him to the orphanage thereafter. In 9une (B10, @arry, then two years and nine months of age, formally became the ward of respondent !edro 2guirre and his spouse @ourdes 2guirre by virtue of an Affida$it of Consent to (egal Guardianship e%ecuted in their favor by 3ister =ary "oncepta >ellosillo, 3uperior of the Aeart of =ary .illa. $n (B 9une (B1*, the 2guirre spousesD guardianship of @arry was legali'ed when the 7egional Trial "ourt /7T"0, >ranch of >alanga, >ataan, duly appointed them as ,oint co-guardians over the person and property of @arry. 2s @arry was growing up, the 2guirre spouses and their children noticed that his developmental milestones were remar+ably delayed. Ais cognitive and physical growth did not appear normal in that ;at age to ) years, @arry could only crawl on his tummy li+e a frog % % %C;1 he did not utter his first word until he was three years of ageC did not spea+ in sentences until his si%th yearC and only learned to stand up and wal+ after he turned five years old. 2t age si%, the 2guirre spouses first enrolled @arry at the "olegio de 3an 2gustin, 4asmariEas .illage, but the child e%perienced significant learning difficulties there. In (B1B, at age eleven, @arry was ta+en to specialists for neurological and psychological evaluations. The psychological evaluationB done on @arry revealed the latter to be suffering from a mild

mental deficiency.(0 "onseFuent thereto, the 2guirre spouses transferred @arry to 3t. 9ohn =a. .ianney, an educational institution for special children. In 6ovember of 200(, respondent 4r. 2gatep, a urologist?surgeon, was approached concerning the intention to have @arry, then 2) years of age, vasectomi'ed. !rior to performing the procedure on the intended patient, respondent 4r. 2gatep reFuired that @arry be evaluated by a psychiatrist in order to confirm and validate whether or not the former could validly give his consent to the medical procedure on account of his mental deficiency. In view of the reFuired psychiatric clearance, @arry was brought to respondent 4r. !ascual, a psychiatrist, for evaluation. In a psychiatric report dated 2( 9anuary 2002, respondent 4r. !ascual made the following recommendation# GTHhe responsibility of decision ma+ing may be given to his parent or guardian.(( the full te%t of which reads I !3J"AI2T7J 75!$7T 2( 9anuary 2002 856572@ 42T2 @2-7526$ 28-I775, 2) years old, male, high school graduate of 3t. 9ohn G=arie .ianneyH, was referred for psychiatric evaluation to determine competency to give consent for vasectomy. "@I6I"2@ 3-==27J @arry was adopted at age from an orphanage and prenatal history is not +nown to the adoptive family e%cept that abortion was attempted. 4evelopmental milestones were noted to be delayed. Ae started to wal+ and spea+ in single word at around age 5. Ae was enrolled in "olegio de 3an 2gustin at age * where he showed significant learning difficulties that he had to repeat (st and )th grades. 2 consult was done in (B1B when he was (( years old. 6eurological findings and 558 results were not normal and he was given Tecretol and 5ncephabol by his neurologist. !sychological evaluation revealed mild to moderate mental retardation, special education training was advised and thus, he was transferred to 3t. 9ohn =arie .ianney. Ae finished his elementary and secondary education in the said school. Ae was later enrolled in a vocational course at 4on >osco which he was unable to continue. There has been no reported behavioral problems in school and he gets along relatively well with his teachers and some of his classmates. @arry grew up with a very supportive adoptive family. Ae is the youngest in the family of four sisters. "urrently, his adoptive parents are already old and have medical problem and thus, they could no longer monitor and ta+e care of him li+e before. Ais adoptive mother has >ipolar =ood 4isorder and used to physically maltreat him. 2 year ago, he had an episode of di''iness, vomiting and headaches after he was hit by his adoptive mother. "onsult was done in =a+ati =edical "enter and several tests were done, results of which were consistent with his developmental problem. There was no evidence of acute insults. The family subseFuently decided that he should stay with one of his sisters to avoid similar incident and the possibility that he would retaliate although he has never hurt anybody. There has been no episode of violent outburst or aggressive behavior. Ae would often +eep to himself when sad, angry or frustrated. Ae is currently employed in the company of his sister and given assignment to do some photocopying, usually in the mornings. Ae en,oys playing billiards and bas+etball with his nephews and, he spends most of his leisure time watching T. and listening to music. Ae could perform activities of daily living without assistance e%cept that he still needs supervision in ta+ing a bath. Ae cannot prepare his own meal and never allowed to go out and run errands alone. Ae does not have friends and it is only his adoptive family whom he has significant relationships. Ae claims that he once had a girlfriend when he was in high school who was more li+e a best friend to him. Ae never had se%ual relations. Ae has learned to smo+e and drin+ alcohol few years ago through his cousins and the drivers. There is no history of abuse of alcohol or any prohibited substances.

=54I"2@ 3T2T-3 5K2=I62TI$6 The applicant was appropriately dressed. Ae was cooperative and he had intermittent eye contact. 3peech was spontaneous, soft, and relevant. Ae responded to Fuestions in single words or simple sentences. Ae was an%ious specially at the start of the interview, with full affect appropriate to mood and thought content. There was no apparent thought or perceptual disturbance. 6o suicidal?homicidal thoughts elicited. Ae was oriented to time, place and person. Ae has intact remote and recent memory. Ae could do simple calculation. Ae could write his name and read simple words. Ais human figure was comparable to a :-1 year old. Ae demonstrated fair ,udgment and poor insight. Ae had fair impulse control. !3J"A$@$8I"2@ T53T3 !sychological tests done on =arch *, (BB0 /4r. @ourdes @edesma0 and on 2ugust ), 2000 /4r. =a. Teresa 8ustilo-.illaosor0 consistently revealed mild to moderate mental deficiency. 3I86IFI"26T @2>$72T$7J 5K2=3 753-@T3 "T scan done 0B 9anuary 200( showed nonspecific right deep parietal subcortical malacia. 6o locali'ed mass lesion in the brain. =7I done on (0 9anuary 200( showed bilateral parietal % % % volume loss, encephalomalacia, gliosis and ulegyria consistent with seFuela of postnatal or neonatal infarcts. 5%-vacuo dilatation of the atria of lateral ventricles associated thinned posterior half of the corpus callosum. 233533=56T 264 75"$==5642TI$6 2%is I 6one 2%is II =ental 7etardation, mild to moderate type 2%is III 6one 2%is I. 6one at present 2%is . "urrent 82F L 50-*0 @arryDs mental deficiency could be associated with possible perinatal insults, which is consistent with the neuroimaging findings. =ental retardation associated with neurological problems usually has poorer prognosis. @arry is very much dependent on his family for his needs, adaptive functioning, direction and in ma+ing ma,or life decisions. 2t his capacity, he may never understand the nature, the foreseeable ris+s and benefits, and conseFuences of the procedure /vasectomy0 that his family wants for his protection. Thus, the responsibility of decision ma+ing may be given to his parent or guardian. =arissa >. !ascual, =.4. !sychiatrist(2 "onsidering the above recommendation, respondent !edro 2guirreDs written consent was deemed sufficient in order to proceed with the conduct of the vasectomy. Aence, on ( 9anuary 2002, respondent 4r. 2gatep performed a bilateral vasectomy on @arry. $n (( 9une 2002, petitioner 8loria 2guirre, respondent !edro 2guirreDs eldest child, instituted a criminal complaint for the violation of the 7evised !enal "ode, particularly 2rticles (:2 and 2*2, both in relation to 7epublic 2ct 6o. :*(0 against respondents !edro 2guirre, $londri', 4r. 2gatep, 4r. !ascual and several 9ohn?9ane 4oes before the $ffice of the "ity !rosecutor of <ue'on "ity.

The "omplaint 2ffidavit,( doc+eted as I.3. 6o. 02-(2)**, contained the following allegations# 2. % % % 4r. 2gatep and 4ra. !ascual were /sic0 medical practitioners speciali'ing in urology and psychiatry respectivelyC while respondent !edro >. 2guirre is my fatherC =ichelina 3. 2guirre-$londri' is my sister, and the victim @aureano ;@arry; 2guirre %%% is my common law brother. 9$A6 and 9265 4$53 were the persons who, acting upon the apparent instructions of respondents =ichelina 2guirre-$londri' and?or !edro >. 2guirre, actually scouted, prospected, facilitated, solicited and?or procured the medical services of respondents 4ra. !ascual and 4r. 2gatep vis-M-vis the intended mutilation via bilateral vasectomy of my common law brother @arry 2guirre sub,ect hereof. %%%% ). 3ometime in =arch 2002, however, the Aeart of =ary .illa of the 8ood 3hepherd 3isters was furnished a copy of respondent 4ra. !ascualDs !sychiatry 7eport dated 2( 9anuary 200) by the ;43&4,; in which my common law brother ;@arry; was falsely and maliciously declared incompetent and incapable of purportedly giving his own consent to the =-TI@2TI$6 .I2 >I@2T572@ .235"T$=J intended to be performed on him by all the respondents. %%%% *. >ased on the foregoing charade and false pretenses invariably committed by all of the respondents in conspiracy with each other, on ( 9anuary 2002, my common law brother @arry 2guirre, although of legal age but conspiratorially caused to be declared by respondents to be ;mentally deficient; and incompetent to give consent to his >I@2T572@ .235"T$=J, was then intentionally, unlawfully, maliciously, feloniously and?or criminally placed thereafter under surgery for =-TI@2TI$6 .I2 ;>I@2T572@ .235"T$=J; % % %, 5.56 &ITA$-T 26J 2-TA$7IN2TI$6 $7457 from the 8-274I263AI! "$-7T, nor personal consent of @arry 2guirre himself. In addition to the above, the complaint included therein an allegation that I v. % % % without a !7I$7 medical e%amination, professional interview of nor verification and consultation with my mother, @ourdes 3abino-2guirre, respondent 4ra. !ascual baselessly, fraudulently and with obvious intent to defame and malign her reputation and honor, and worse, that of our 3abido family, falsely concluded and diagnosed, via her falsified !sychiatry 7eport, that my mother @ourdes 3abido-2guirre purportedly suffers from ;>I!$@27 =$$4 4I3$7457; % % %. To answer petitioner 8loria 2guirreDs accusations against them, respondents !edro 2guirre, $londri', 4r. 2gatep and 4r. !ascual submitted their respective "ounter-2ffidavits. In her defense,() respondent $londri' denied that she ;prospected, scouted, facilitated, solicited and?or procured any false statement, mutilated or abused; her common-law brother, @arry 2guirre. Further, she countered that# . % % % &hile I am aware and admit that @arry went through a vasectomy procedure, there is nothing in the "omplaint which e%plains how the vasectomy amounts to a mutilation. %%%% 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. *. 6either did I procure or solicit the services of the physician who performed the vasectomy, 4r. 9uvido 2gatep % % %. It was my father, !edro 2guirre, @arryDs guardian, who obtained his services. I merely acted upon his instructions and accompanied my brother to the physician, respondents 4ra. =arissa >. !ascual % % %. %%%%

(0. 6either does the "omplaint e%plain in what manner the "omplainant is authori'ed or has any standing to declare that @arryDs consent was not obtained. "omplainant is not the guardian or relative of @arry. &hile she argues that @arryDs consent should have been obtained the "omplaint does not dispute the psychiatristDs findings about @arryDs inability to give consent. %%%% ( . % % % the "omplaint 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. %%%% (5. 2gain, I had no participation in the preparation of the report of 4r. !ascual % % %. %%%% (:. % % % the "omplaint does not dispute that he /@arry0 is mentally deficient or incompetent to give consent. %%%% (B. % % % I verified that the effect of a vasectomy operation was e%plained to him /@arry0 by both respondent doctors. 20. % % % I accompanied @arry and obeyed my father on the belief that my father continues to be the legal guardian of @arry. I +now of no one else who asserts to be his legal guardian % % %.(5 2lleging the same statement of facts and defenses, respondent !edro 2guirre 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.(* 6evertheless, he maintains that the vasectomy performed on @arry does not in any way amount to mutilation, as the latterDs reproductive organ is still completely intact.(: In any case, respondent !edro 2guirre e%plains that the procedure performed is reversible through another procedure called .asovasostomy, to wit# 1. I understand that vasectomy is re$ersible through a procedure called .asovasostomy. I can also state with confidence that the procedure enables men who have undergone a vasectomy to sire a child. Aence, no permanent damage was caused by the procedure. 7espondent !edro 2guirre challenges the charge of falsification in the complaint, to wit# (). % % % I did not ma+e it appear that any person participated in any act or proceeding when that person did not in fact participate % % %. %%%% (*. % % % I had no participation in the preparation of the report of 4ra. !ascual. 3he arrived at her report independently, using her own professional ,udgment % % %. %%%%

(. &hat I cannot understand about !etitaDs "omplaint is how @arry 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.(1 7espondent !edro 2guirre further clarifies that co-guardianship over @arry had been granted to himself and his wife, @ourdes 2guirre, way bac+ on (B 9une (B1* by the 7egional Trial "ourt, >ranch of >alanga, >ataan. 7espondent !edro 2guirre contends that being one of the legal guardians, conseFuently, parental authority over @arry is vested in him. >ut assuming for the sa+e of argument that @arry does have the capacity to ma+e the decision concerning his vasectomy, respondent !edro 2guirre argues that petitioner 8loria 2guirre has no legal personality to institute the sub,ect criminal complaint, for only @arry would have the right to do so. 9ust as the two preceding respondents did, respondent 4r. 2gatep also disputed the allegations of facts stated in the "omplaint. 2dopting the allegations of his co-respondents insofar as they were material to the charges against him, he vehemently denied failing to inform @arry of the intended procedure. In his counter-statement of facts he averred that# /b0 % % % I scheduled @arry for consultative interview % % % wherein I painsta+ingly e%plained what vasectomy is and the conseFuences thereofC but finding signs of mental deficiency, % % % I advised his relatives and his nurse who accompanied him to have @arry e%amined by a psychiatrist who could properly determine whether or not @arry % % % can really give his consent, thus I reFuired them to secure first a psychiatric evaluation and clearance prior to the contemplated procedure. /c0 $n 9anuary 2(, 2002, I was furnished a copy of a psychiatric report prepared by 4r. =arissa !ascual % % %. In her said report, 4r. !ascual found @arry to suffer from ;mental retardation, mild to moderate type; and further stated that ;at his capacity, he may never understand the nature, the foreseeable ris+s and benefits and conseFuences of the procedure /vasectomy0 % % %, thus the responsibility of decision ma+ing may be given to his parent or guardian % % %.; /d0 % % % I was li+ewise furnished a copy of an affidavit e%ecuted by !edro 2guirre stating that he was the legal guardian of @arry % % % !edro 2guirre gave his consent to vasectomi'e @arry % % %. /e0 $nly then, specifically 9anuary (, 2002, vasectomy was performed with utmost care and diligence.(B In defense against the charge of falsification and mutilation, respondent 4r. 2gatep argued that sub,ect complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons# (. The complainant has no legal personality to file this case. 2s mentioned above, she is only a common law sister of @arry who has a legal guardian in the person of !edro 2guirre, one of the herein respondents % % %. 2. % % % GtHhe allegations in the complaint clearly centers on the condition of complainantDs mother, @ourdes 2guirre, her reputation, and miserably fails to implicate the degree of participation of herein respondent. % % % %%%% /b0 Falsification. % % % I strongly aver that this felony does not apply to me since it clearly gives reference to co-respondent, 4r. =arissa !ascualDs !sychiatry 7eport, dated 9anuary 2(, 2002, in relation with her field of profession, an e%pert opinion. I do not have any participation in the preparation of said report, % % % neither did I utili'ed /sic0 the same in any proceedings to the damage to another. % % % I also deny using a falsified document % % %. /c0 =utilation. % % % .asectomy does not in anyway eFuate to castration and what is touched in vasectomy is not considered an organ in the conte%t of law and medicine, it is Fuite remote from the penis % % %. /d0 "hild 2buse. % % % the complaint-affidavit is very vague in specifying the applicability of said law. It merely avers that @aureano ;@arry; 2guirre is a child, and alleges his father, !edro 2guirre, has parental authority over him % % %.20

3imilarly, respondent 4r. !ascual denied the criminal charges of falsification and mutilation imputed to her. 3he stands by the contents of the assailed !sychiatric 7eport, ,ustifying it thus# % % % =y opinion of @arry 2guirreDs mental status was based on my own personal observations, his responses during my interview of him, the results of the two /20 psychological tests conducted by clinical psychologists, the results of laboratory tests, including a "T 3can and =7I, and his personal and family history which I obtained from his sister, =ichelina 2guirre-$londri' % % %. 5. % % % the reference in my report concerning =rs. @ourdes 2guirre is not a statement of my opinion of =rs. 2guirreDs mental status, % % %. 7ather, it is part of the patientDs personal and family history as conveyed to me by =rs. 2guirre-$londri'. *. % % % 2n e%pression of my opinion, especially of an e%pert opinion, cannot give rise to a charge for falsification. 2 contrary opinion by another e%pert only means that the e%perts differ, and does not necessarily reflect on the truth or falsity of either opinion % % %. :. % % % I never stated that I e%amined =rs. 2guirre, because I never did % % %. 1. I had no participation in the surgery performed on @arry 2guirre e%cept to render an opinion on his capacity to give informed consent to the vasectomy % % %. B. &ithout admitting the merits of the complaint, I submit that complainants are not the proper persons to subscribe to the same as they are not the offended party, peace officer or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated % % %.2( The 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor held that the circumstances attendant to the case did not amount to the crime of falsification. Ae held that I GTHhe claim of the complainant that the !sychiatric 7eport was falsified, because consent was not given by @arry 2guirre to the vasectomy and?or he was not consulted on said operation does not constitute falsification. It would have been different if it was stated in the report that consent was obtained from @arry 2guirre or that it was written therein that he was consulted on the vasectomy, because that would mean that it was made to appear in the report that @arry 2guirre participated in the act or proceeding by giving his consent or was consulted on the matter when in truth and in fact, he did not participate. $r if not, the entry would have been an untruthful statement. >ut that is not the case. !recisely /sic0 the report was made to determine whether @arry 2guirre could give his consent to his intended vasectomy. >e that as it may, the matter of @arryDs consent having obtained or not may nor be an issue after all, because complainantDs /sic0 herself alleged that @arryDs mental condition is that of a child, who can not give consent. >ased on the foregoing consideration, no falsification can be established under the circumstances.22 5ven the statement in the !sychiatric 7eport of respondent 4r. !ascual that @ourdes 2guirre had >ipolar =ood 4isorder cannot be considered falsification since I The report did not state that @ourdes 2guirre was in fact personally interviewed by respondent 4r. !ascual and that the latter concluded that @ourdes 2guirre has >ipolar =ood 4isorder. The report merely Fuoted other sources of information with respect to the condition of @ourdes 2guirre, in the same manner that the fact that @ourdes 2guirre was physically abusing @arry 2guirre was also not of 4ra. !ascual personal +nowledge. >ut the fact that 4ra. !ascual cited finding, which is not of her own personal +nowledge in her report does not mean that she committed falsification in the process. Aer sources may be wrong and may affect the veracity of her report, but for as long as she has not alleged therein that she personally diagnosed @ourdes 2guirre, which allegation would not then be true, she cannot be charged of falsification. Therefore, it goes without saying that if the author of the report is not guilty, then with more reason the other respondents are not liable.2 7especting the charge of mutilation, the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor also held that the facts alleged did not amount to the crime of mutilation as defined and penali'ed under 2rticle 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode, i.e., ;GtHhe vasectomy operation did not in any way deprived /sic0 @arry of his reproductive organ, which is still very much part of his physical self.; Ae ratiocinated that#

&hile the operation renders him the inability /sic0 to procreate, the operation is reversible and therefore, cannot be the permanent damage contemplated under 2rticle 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode.2) The 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor,25 in a 7esolution2* dated 1 9anuary 200 , found no probable cause to hold respondents !edro 2guirre, $londri', 4r. 2gatep and 4r. !ascual liable for the complaint of falsification and mutilation, more specifically, the violation of 2rticles (:2 and 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode, in relation to 7epublic 2ct 6o. :*(0. 2ccordingly, the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor recommended the dismissal of petitioner 8loria 2guirreDs complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads# &A575F$75, it is recommended that the above-entitled case be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.2: $n (1 February 200 , petitioner 8loria 2guirre appealed the foregoing resolution to the 3ecretary of the 4$9 by means of a !etition for 7eview.21 In a 7esolution dated (( February 200), "hief 3tate !rosecutor 9ovencito 7. NuEo, for the 3ecretary of the 4$9, dismissed the petition. In resolving said appeal, the "hief 3tate !rosecutor held that# -nder 3ection (2, in relation to 3ection :, of 4epartment "ircular 6o. :0 dated 9uly , 2000, the 3ecretary of 9ustice may, motu proprio, dismiss outright the petition if there is no showing of any reversible error in the Fuestioned resolution or finds the same to be patently without merit. &e carefully e%amined the petition and its attachments and found no error that would ,ustify a reversal of the assailed resolution which is in accord with the law and evidenced /sic0 on the matter.2B !etitioner 8loria 2guirreDs =otion for 7econsideration was li+ewise denied with finality by the 4$9 in another 7esolution dated (2 6ovember 200). 7esolute in her belief, petitioner 8loria 2guirre went to the "ourt of 2ppeals by means of a !etition for Certiorari, !rohibition and !andamus under 7ule *5 of the 7ules of "ourt, as amended. $n 2( 9uly 2005, the "ourt of 2ppeals promulgated its 4ecision dismissing petitioner 8loria 2guirreDs recourse for lac+ of merit. The fallo of the assailed decision reads# &A575F$75, premises considered, the present petition is hereby 456I54 4-5 "$-735 and accordingly 4I3=I3354 for lac+ of merit. "onseFuently, the assailed 7esolutions dated February ((, 200) and 6ovember (2, 200) of the 3ecretary of 9ustice in I.3. 6o. 02-(2)** are hereby 2FFI7=54. 0 !etitioner 8loria 2guirreDs motion for reconsideration proved futile as it was denied by the appellate court in a 7esolution dated 5 4ecember 2005. Aence, the present petition filed under 7ule )5 of the 7ules of "ourt, as amended, premised on the following arguments# I. TA5 "$-7T $F 2!!52@3 "$==ITT54 357I$-3, 872.5 264 75.573I>@5 577$73 $F @2& &A56 IT "$6"@-454, >2354 !-7!$7T54@J $6 TA5 I6T5765T &AI"A 7-63 2=-"O &ITA $-7 3J3T5= $F TA5 7-@5 $F @2& 264 TA5 5.I456"5 $6 75"$74, TA2T >I@2T572@ .235"T$=J I3 !-7!$7T54@J (00P 75.573I>@5 >J 2 F-T-75 =54I"2@ !7$"54-75 A56"5 6$T 2=$-6TI68 T$ =-TI@2TI$6, K K KC 264 %%%% II.

&$735, TA5 "$-7T $F 2!!52@3 "$==ITT54 872.5, 357I$-3 264 75.573I>@5 577$73 $F @2& &A56 IT 75F-354 T$ 4I75"T TA5 I64I"T=56T $F TA5 !7I.2T5 753!$6456T3 F$7 =-TI@2TI$6 264 F2@3IFI"2TI$6 453!IT5 TA5 5KI3T56"5 $F 3-FFI"I56T !7$>2>@5 "2-35 TA575F$7 K K K. ( The foregoing issues notwithstanding, the more proper issue for this "ourtDs consideration is, given the facts of the case, whether or not the "ourt of 2ppeals erred in ruling that the 4$9 did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or e%cess of ,urisdiction when the latter affirmed the public prosecutorDs finding of lac+ of probable cause for respondents !edro 2guirre, $londri', 4r. 2gatep and 4r. !ascual to stand trial for the criminal complaints of falsification and mutilation in relation to 7epublic 2ct 6o. :*(0. In ruling that the 4$9 did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or e%cess of ,urisdiction, the "ourt of 2ppeals e%plained that# 5vidently, the controversy lies in the permanency of sterili'ation as a result of a vasectomy operation, and the chances of restoring fertility with a reversal surgery % % %. &e sustain the 4$9 in ruling that the bilateral vasectomy performed on @arry does not constitute mutilation even if intentionally and purposely done to prevent him from siring a child. %%%% 3terili'ation is to be distinguished from castration# in the latter act the reproductive capacity is permanently removed or damaged. 2 It then concluded that# The matter of legal liability, other than criminal, which private respondents may have incurred for the alleged absence of a valid consent to the vasectomy performed on @arry, is certainly beyond the province of this certiorari petition. $ut tas+ is confined to the issue of whether or not the 3ecretary of 9ustice and the $ffice of the "ity !rosecutor of <ue'on "ity committed grave abuse of discretion in their determining the e%istence or absence of probable cause for filing criminal cases for falsification and mutilation under 2rticles (:2 /20 and 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode. !etitioner 8loria 2guirre, however, contends that the "ourt of 2ppeals and the 4$9 failed to appreciate several important facts# (0 that bilateral vasectomy conducted on petitionerDs brother, @arry 2guirre, was admitted )C 20 that the procedure caused the perpetual destruction of @arryDs reproductive organs of generation or conceptionC 5 0 that the bilateral vasectomy was intentional and deliberate to deprive @arry forever of his reproductive organ and his capacity to procreateC and )0 that respondents, ;in conspiracy with one another, made not only one but two /20 untruthful statements, and not mere inaccuracies when they made it appear in the psychiatry report; * that a0 @arryDs consent was obtained or at the very least that the latter was informed of the intended vasectomyC and b0 that @ourdes 2guirre was li+ewise interviewed and evaluated. !arado%ically, however, petitioner 8loria 2guirre does not in any way state that she, instead of respondent !edro 2guirre, has guardianship over the person of @arry. 3he only insists that respondents should have obtained @arryDs consent prior to the conduct of the bilateral vasectomy. In contrast, the $ffice of the 3olicitor 8eneral /$380, for public respondent 4$9, argues that ;the conduct of preliminary investigation to determine the e%istence of probable cause for the purpose of filing /an0 information is the function of the public prosecutor.; : =ore importantly, ;the elementGsH of castration or mutilation of an organ necessary for generation is completely absent as he was not deprived of any organ necessary for reproduction, much less the destruction of such organ.; 1 @i+ewise, in support of the decision of the "ourt of 2ppeals, respondents !edro 2guirre and $londri' assert that, fundamentally, petitioner 8loria 2guirre has no standing to file the complaint, as she has not shown any in,ury to her person or asserted any relationship with @arry other than being his ;common law sister;C further, that she cannot prosecute the present case, as she has not been authori'ed by law to file said complaint, not being the offended party, a peace officer or a public officer charged with the enforcement of the law. 2ccordingly, respondents !edro 2guirre and $londri' posit that they, together with the other respondents 4r. 2gatep and 4r. !ascual, may not be charged with, prosecuted for and ultimately convicted of# (0 ;mutilation % % % since the bilateral vasectomy conducted

on @arry does not involve castration or amputation of an organ necessary for reproduction as the twin elements of the crime of mutilation % % % are absent; BC and 20 ;falsification % % % since the acts allegedly constituting falsification involve matters of medical opinion and not matters of fact,;)0 and that petitioner 8loria 2guirre failed to prove damage to herself or to any other person. 7espondent 4r. 2gatep, in the same vein, stresses that vasectomy is not mutilation. Ae elucidates that vasectomy is merely the ;e%cision of the vas deferens, the duct in testis which transport semen;)(C that it is the penis and the testis that ma+e up the male reproductive organ and not the vas deferensC and additionally argues that for the crime of mutilation to be accomplished, 2rticle 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode necessitates that there be intentional total or partial deprivation of some essential organ for reproduction. Tubes, seminal ducts, vas deferens or prostatic urethra not being organs, respondent 4r. 2gatep concludes, therefore, that vasectomy does not correspond to mutilation. 2nent the charge of falsification of a private document, respondent 4r. 2gatep asseverates that he never too+ part in disclosing any information, data or facts as contained in the contentious !sychiatric 7eport. For her part, respondent 4r. !ascual insists that the assailed !sychiatry 7eport was the result of her independent e%ercise of professional ,udgment. ;7ightly or wrongly, /she0 diagnosed @arry 2guirre to be incapable of giving consent, based on interviews made by the psychiatrist on @arry 2guirre and persons who interacted with him.;)22nd supposing that said report is flawed, it is, at most, an erroneous medical diagnosis. The petition has no merit. !robable cause has been defined as the e%istence of such facts and circumstances as would e%cite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the +nowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.) The term does not mean ;actual and positive cause; nor does it import absolute certainty.)) It is merely based on opinion and reasonable beliefC)5 that is, the belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. 2 finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.)* The e%ecutive department of the government is accountable for the prosecution of crimes, its principal obligation being the faithful e%ecution of the laws of the land. 2 necessary component of the power to e%ecute the laws is the right to prosecute their violators,): the responsibility of which is thrust upon the 4$9. Aence, the determination of whether or not probable cause e%ists to warrant the prosecution in court of an accused is consigned and entrusted to the 4$9. 2nd by the nature of his office, a public prosecutor is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. !ut simply, public prosecutors under the 4$9 have a wide range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the e%ercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by /public0 prosecutors.)1 2nd this "ourt has consistently adhered to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an information against the supposed offender.)B >ut this is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. It is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor may erroneously e%ercise the discretion lodged in him by law. This, however, does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the e%traordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to e%cess of ,urisdiction.50 !rescinding from the above, the courtDs duty in an appropriate case, therefore, is confined to a determination of whether the assailed e%ecutive determination of probable cause was done without or in e%cess of ,urisdiction resulting from a grave abuse of discretion. For courts of law to grant the e%traordinary writ of certiorari, so as to ,ustify the reversal of the finding of whether or not there e%ists probable cause to file an information, the one see+ing the writ must be able to establish that the investigating prosecutor e%ercised his power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty en,oined or to act in contemplation of law. 8rave abuse of discretion is not enough.5( 5%cess of ,urisdiction signifies that he had ,urisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority.52

2pplying the foregoing disFuisition to the present petition, the reasons of the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor in dismissing the criminal complaints for falsification and mutilation, as affirmed by the 4$9, is determinative of whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or e%cess of ,urisdiction. In ruling the way he did I that no probable cause for falsification and mutilation e%ists - the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor deliberated on the factual and legal milieu of the case. Ae found that there was no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for the crimes complained of as defined and punished under 2rticles (:2, paragraph 2, and 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode in relation to 7epublic 2ct 6o. :*(0, respectively. "oncerning the crime of falsification of a private document, the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor reasoned that the circumstances attendant to the case did not amount to the crime complained of, that is, the lac+ of consent by @arry 2guirre before he was vasectomi'edC or the fact that the latter was not consulted. The lac+ of the two preceding attendant facts do not in any way amount to falsification, absent the contention that it was made to appear in the assailed report that said consent was obtained. That would have been an untruthful statement. 6either does the fact that the !sychiatric 7eport state that @ourdes 2guirre has >ipolar =ood 4isorder by the same to+en amount to falsification because said report does not put forward that such finding arose after an e%amination of the concerned patient. Apropos the charge of mutilation, he reasoned that though the vasectomy rendered @arry unable to procreate, it was not the permanent damage contemplated under the pertinent provision of the penal code. &e agree. 8rave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or e%cess of ,urisdiction on the part of the 4$9 and the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor was not shown in the present case. In the present petition, respondents !edro 2guirre, $londri', 4r. 2gatep and 4r. !ascual are charged with violating 2rticles (:2 and 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode, in relation to 7epublic 2ct 6o. :*(0. 2rticle (:2, paragraph 2 of the 7evised !enal "ode, defines the crime of falsification of a private document, vi' I 2rt. (:2. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. I The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and ma%imum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon# %%%% 2. 2ny person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the ne%t preceding article. !etitioner 8loria 2guirre charges respondents with falsification of a private document for conspiring with one another in +eeping @arry ;in the dar+ about the foregoing /vasectomy0 as the same was concealed from him by the respondents % % %,;5 as well as for falsely concluding and diagnosing @ourdes 2guirre to be suffering from >ipolar =ood 4isorder. 2 scrutiny, however, of 2rticle (:( of the 7evised !enal "ode which defines the acts constitutive of falsification, that is I 2rt. (:(. % % % shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts# (. "ounterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubricC 2. "ausing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participateC . 2ttributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by themC ). =a+ing untruthful statements in a narration of factsC 5. 2ltering true datesC *. =a+ing any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaningC

:. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original e%ists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine originalC or 1. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official boo+. $is-)-$is the much critici'ed !sychiatric 7eport, shows that the acts complained of do not in any manner, by whatever stretch of the imagination, fall under any of the eight /10 enumerated acts constituting the offense of falsification. In order to properly address the issue presented by petitioner 8loria 2guirre, it is necessary that we discuss the elements of the crime of falsification of private document under the 7evised !enal "ode, a crime which all the respondents have been accused of perpetrating. The elements of said crime under paragraph 2 of 2rticle (:2 of our penal code are as follows# (0 that the offender committed any acts of falsification, e%cept those in par. :, enumerated in 2rticle (:(C 20 that the falsification was committed in any private documentC and 0 that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. -nder 2rticle (:(, paragraph 2, a person may commit falsification of a private document by causing it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or proceeding, when such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. $n the other hand, falsification under par. of the same article is perpetrated by a person or persons who, participating in an act or proceeding, made statements in that act or proceeding and the offender, in ma+ing a document, attributed to such person or persons statements other than those in fact made by such person or persons. 2nd the crime defined under paragraph ) thereof is committed when (0 the offender ma+es in a document statements in a narration of factsC 20 he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by himC 0 the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely falseC and )0 the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of in,uring a third person. 2pplying the above-stated elements of the crime to the case at bar, in order that respondent 4r. !ascual, and the rest acting in conspiracy with her, to have committed the crime of falsification under par. and ) of 2rticle (:( of the 7evised !enal "ode, it is essential that that there be prima facie evidence to show that she had caused it to appear that @arry gave his consent to be vasectomi'ed or at the very least, that the proposed medical procedure was e%plained to @arry. >ut in the assailed report, no such thing was done. @est it be forgotten, the reason for having @arry psychiatrically evaluated was precisely to ascertain whether or not he can validly consent with impunity to the proposed vasectomy, and not to obtain his consent to it or to oblige respondent 4r. !ascual to e%plain to him what the import of the medical procedure was. Further, that @arryDs consent to be vasectomi'ed was not obtained by the psychiatrist was of no moment, because nowhere is it stated in said report that such assent was obtained. 2t any rate, petitioner 8loria 2guirre contradicts her very own allegations when she persists in the contention that @arry has the mental age of a childC hence, he was legally incapable of validly consenting to the procedure. In the matter of the supposed incorrect diagnosis of @ourdes 2guirre, with regard to paragraph 2 of 2rticle (:( of the 7evised !enal "ode, we Fuote with approval the succinct statements of the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor# GTHhe fact that 4ra. !ascual cited finding, which is not of her own personal +nowledge in her report does not mean that she committed falsification in the process. Aer sources may be wrong and may affect the veracity of her report, but for as long as she has not alleged therein that she personally diagnosed @ourdes 2guirre, which allegation would not then be true, she cannot be charged of falsification. Therefore, it goes without saying that if the author of the report is not guilty, then with more reason the other respondents are not liable.5) 2s to the charge of mutilation, 2rt. 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode defines the crime as I 2rt. 2*2. Mutilation. I 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. 2ny other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and ma%imum periods. 2 straightforward scrutiny of the above provision shows that the elements55 of mutilation under the first paragraph of 2rt. 2*2 of the 7evised !enal "ode to be (0 that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generationC and 20 that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of

some essential organ for reproduction. 2ccording to the public prosecutor, the facts alleged did not amount to the crime of mutilation as defined and penali'ed above, i.e., ;GtHhe vasectomy operation did not in any way deprived /sic0 @arry of his reproductive organ, which is still very much part of his physical self.; !etitioner 8loria 2guirre, however, would want this "ourt to ma+e a ruling that bilateral vasectomy constitutes the crime of mutilation. This we cannot do, for such an interpretation would be contrary to the intentions of the framers of our penal code. 2 fitting riposte to the issue at hand lies in *nited States $. Esparcia,5* in which this "ourt had the occasion to shed light on the implication of the term mutilation. Therein we said that# The sole point which it is desirable to discuss is whether or not the crime committed is that defined and penali'ed by article )() of the !enal "ode. The 5nglish translation of this article reads# ;2ny person who shall intentionally castrate another shall suffer a penalty ranging from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.; The 3panish te%t, which should govern, uses the word ;castrare,; inadeFuately translated into 5nglish as ;castrate.; The word ;capar,; which is synonymous of ;castrar,; is defined in the 7oyal 2cademic 4ictionary as the destruction of the organs of generation or conception. "learly it is the intention of the law to punish any person who shall intentionally deprived another of any organ necessary for reproduction. 2n applicable construction is that of .iada in the following language# ;2t the head of these crimes, according to their order of gravity, is the mutilation +nown by the name of DcastrationD which consists of the amputation of whatever organ is necessary for generation. The law could not fail to punish with the utmost severity such a crime, which, although not destroying life, deprives a person of the means to transmit it. >ut bear in mind that according to this article in order for DcastrationD to e%ist, it is indispensable that the DcastrationD be made purposely. The law does not loo+ only to the result but also to the intention of the act. "onseFuently, if by reason of an in,ury or attac+, a person is deprived of the organs of generation, the act, although voluntary, not being intentional to that end, it would not come under the provisions of this article, but under 6o. 2 of article ) (.; /.iada, "odigo !enal, vol. , p. :0. 3ee to same effect, ) 8roi'ard, "odigo !enal, p. 525.0 Thus, the Fuestion is, does vasectomy deprive a man, totally or partially, of some essential organ of reproductionQ &e answer in the negative. In the male sterili'ation procedure of vasectomy, the tubular passage, called the vas deferens, through which the sperm /cells0 are transported from the testicle to the urethra where they combine with the seminal fluid to form the e,aculant, is divided and the cut ends merely tied.5: That part, which is cut, that is, the vas deferens, is merely a passageway that is part of the duct system of the male reproductive organs. The vas deferens is not an organ,i.e., a highly organi'ed unit of structure, having a defined function in a multicellular organism and consisting of a range of tissues.51 >e that as it may, even assuming arguendo that the tubular passage can be considered an organ, the cutting of the vas deferens does not divest or deny a man of any essential organ of reproduction for the simple reason that it does not entail the ta+ing away of a part or portion of the male reproductive system. The cut ends, after they have been tied, are then dropped bac+ into the incision.5B Though undeniably, vasectomy denies a man his power of reproduction, such procedure does not deprive him, ;either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.; 6otably, the ordinary usage of the term ;mutilation; is the deprivation of a limb or essential part /of the body0,*0 with the operative e%pression being ;depri$ation.; In the same manner, the word ;castration; is defined as the removal of the testies or ovaries.*( 3uch being the case in this present petition, the bilateral vasectomy done on @arry could not have amounted to the crime of mutilation as defined and punished under 2rticle 2*2, paragraph (, of the 7evised !enal "ode. 2nd no criminal culpability could be foisted on to respondent 4r. 2gatep, the urologist who performed the procedure, much less the other respondents. Thus, we find sufficient evidence to e%plain why the 2ssistant "ity !rosecutor and the 4$9 ruled the way they did. .erily, &e agree with the "ourt of 2ppeals that the writ of certiorari is unavailingC hence, should not be issued. It is once more apropos to pointedly apply the "ourtDs general policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations. 2s it has been oft said, the 3upreme "ourt cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case.*2 The courts try and absolve or convict the accused but, as a rule, have no part in the initial decision to prosecute him.* The possible e%ception to this rule is where there is an unmista+able showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or e%cess of ,urisdiction that will ,ustify ,udicial intrusion into the precincts of the e%ecutive. >ut that is not the case herein.

$HEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lac+ of merit. The assailed 2( 9uly 2005Decision and 5 4ecember 2005 +esolution, both of the "ourt of 2ppeals in "2-8.7. 3! 6o. 11 :0 are herebyAFFIRMED. "osts against petitioner 8loria 2guirre. SO ORDERED. ,nares-Santiago, Chairperson, Austria-!artine%, Corona-, +eyes, JJ., concur.