Vasectomy does not constitute the crime of mutilation, defined under Art. 262 of the Revised Penal Code as the deprivation, either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.

Thus held the Supreme Court’s Third Division in a 31-page decision penned by Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario affirming the Court of Appeals in upholding the dismissal by the Department of Justice for insufficiency of evidence of a complaint for mutilation, among others, filed by petitioner Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre. Her complaint stemmed from the vasectomy done on her adopted brother Laureano “Larry” Aguirre by Dr. Juvido Agatep.  Because Larry was found by psychiatrist Dr. Marissa B. Pascual to be suffering from mental retardation, it was Larry’s father Pedro Aguirre who had given his written consent to the vasectomy.  Named by petitioner as respondents in her complaint were her father Pedro, her sister Michelina S. Aguirre-Olandriz, and Drs. Pascual and Agatep.

The Court held that vasectomy, where the tubular passage called the vas deferens  through which sperm cells are transported from the testicle to the urethra where they combine with the seminal fluid to form the ejaculant is cut and the ends tied together, does not constitute  mutilation as the vas deferens is not an organ. Even assuming otherwise, the Court held that there is no deprivation as the cut ends, after they have been tied, are dropped back into the incision. (GR No. 170723, Aguirre v. Secretary of the Department of Justice, March 3, 2008)