REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
MANILA

JESSICA SAN JUAN y

LAMSEN,
Complainant-Appellant,

-versus- NPS Docket No.: XV-17-INV-17K-876

For: Violation of R.A. 7610
LEAH VALDEZ,
Respondent-Appellee.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMES NOW, complainant-appellant JESSICA SAN JUAN y
LAMSEN, assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office, unto this Honorable
Office, most respectfully submits this Petition for Review and avers as
follows:

NATURE OF PETITION AND TIMELINESS

This is a Petition for Review under the Department of Justice (DOJ)

Circular No. 70 dated 3 July 2000 (“2000 NPS Rule on Appeal”), which
seeks to set aside the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City dated 3 January 2018, as well as the Resolution dated 19
February 2018, denying herein complainant-appellant’s “Motion for
Reconsideration” of the Resolution 3 January 2018. A copy of the
Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City dated 19
February 2018 was sent through registered mail by the said office on 21
February 2018 and was received by the Public Attorney’s Office-Valenzuela
City District Office on 22 February 2018. Pursuant to Section 3 of DOJ
Circular No. 70 an appeal may be brought to the Secretary of Justice within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed resolution or from receipt of the
resolution denying the motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation, if one
has been filed. This being so, the Public Attorney’s Office-Valenzuela City
District Office, as counsel de oficio for the complainant-appellant, has until
9 March 2018 to file an appeal by way of petition for review. Thus, this
petition for review was timely filed.

1
 THE PARTIES

At the time of the commission of the offense complainant-appellant

was a minor, being only 17 years old. She is Filipino, single, currently a
grade 12 student and is a resident of Block 1, C. Molina St., Veinte Reales,
Valenzuela City where she may be served with notices, orders and other
processes by this Honorable Office.

Respondent-appellee is likewise Filipino, of legal age and resident of

Block 1, C. Molina St., Veinte Reales, Valenzuela City where she may
similarly be served with notices, orders and other processes by this
Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

On 12 November 2017, at around 10:45 in the morning, complainant-

appellant was about to go to the house of her cousin, which was just adjacent
to their house, when she suddenly came across respondent-appellee. They
met each other’s eyes. Respondent-appellee then jibed complainant-
appellant by exclaiming: “Itsura mo, akala mo kagandahan ka. Ang panget
panget mo naman.” Complainant-appellant had to go school she shirked the
insult and continued her way. Upon going back home it was then that she
confided the incident to her mother, Maura San Juan.

What took place between complainant-appellant and respondent-

appellee was not an isolated event since even before that whenever they
stumbled upon each other respondent-appellee uttered innuendos against
complainant-appellant. Respondent-appellee has called her “mukhang
kabayo”, “anak ng kabayo” and “panget”, causing her to feel denigrated
especially when the insults were made within the hearing distance of other
people. Complainant-appellant strongly believes that the respondent-
appellee harbors rancor against her and her family as prior to that ill
experience her mother sued respondent-appellee for physical injuries and
unjust vexation in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City.

Complainant-appellant, with the assistance of her mother, caused the

incident to be entered in the blotter of Barangay Veinte Reales. At that time,
complainant-appellant was a minor as she was born on 30 November 1999.
She was advised by an officer from the barangay she is a minor she may
directly institute a complaint against respondent-appellee in the fiscal’s
office without going through conciliation proceedings in the barangay.

With the assistance of her mother, complainant-appellant went to the

Women and Children Protection Desk of PNP Valenzuela Headquarters on
17 November 2017 for the preparation of her complaint-affidavit. She was
even referred by the said office to the City Social Welfare and Development
Office for assessment and counseling.

2
 On 20 November 2017, complainant-appellant filed a formal
complaint against respondent-appellee in the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City, which was docketed as XV-17-INV-17K-876. A certified
true copy of the said complaint together with its supporting documents is
hereto attached and marked as Annexes “A” to “A-5”.

On 5 December 2017, respondent-appellee submitted to the Office of

the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, her counter-affidavit entitled as
“Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay”, as well as the affidavits of her witnesses,
Catalina B. Alpanoso and Alma C. Macaranas. A certified true copy of
respondent-appellee’s counter-affidavit and the affidavit of her witnesses are
hereto attached and marked as Annexes “B” to “B-7”.

Respondent-appellee articulated, inter alia, in her counter-affidavit

that complainant-appellant’s family, especially her mother, Maura San Juan,
resents her which was why she strafed her with a lot of cases in the barangay
and in the fiscal’s office. Respondent-appellee vouched that she has never
affronted complainant-appellant by calling her ugly. On the contrary, it was
allegedly complainant-appellant’s family who frequently puts her down with
derisive words such as “kabit”, “pokpok” and “mukhang kabayo”. She
posited that complainant-appellant may have been prodded by her family to
trump up a story to implicate her for a wrongdoing to gain leverage
considering that she filed a case for physical injuries and unjust vexation
against complainant-appellant’s mother in the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Valenzuela City, which was docketed as I.S. No. 17-INV-17H-622.

Respondent-appellee alleged moreover in her counter-affidavit that

she was inside her house on 12 November 2017 and was conversing with her
friend, Alma C. Macaranas when all of a sudden she heard someone cursing
her from outside of her house: “Putang ina mo Leah Kabayo, huminto ka sa
pagpaparing ang kapal ng mukha mo, mukha kang kabayo!” When she
peeked she realized that the expletives came from complainant-appellant’s
brother, John Nikko San Juan. The latter pounced respondent-appellee with
even more putrid remarks: “Kahit nursing ako babasagin ko ang mukha mo
Leah Kabayo.” Complainant-appellant’s mother, Maura San Juan, dipped
herself in the affray and cast aspersion on respondent-appellee: “Putang ina
mo mukha kang kabayo ang yabang mo!” As a consequence, respondent-
appellee caused the incident to be entered in the blotter of the barangay.

On 3 January 2018, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela

City issued a resolution finding no probable cause to charge respondent for
violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, otherwise known as “Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”.
A certified true copy of the said resolution is hereto attached as Annexes
“C” to “C-2”.

3
 The Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City explained in its
Resolution dated 3 January 2018 that not all acts committed against a minor
constitute child abuse. The act complained of must be proven to have been
committed with intend to debase degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of the child as a human being in order for it to be considered as child
abuse. It was the view of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela
City that complainant-appellant was not able to substantiate that respondent-
appellee was animated by such intent when she slurred her about her
outward appearance. Consequently, the complaint for violation of R.A. 7610
was dismissed.

Undaunted, complainant-appellant filed a “Motion for

Reconsideration” of the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City dated 3 January 2018. A certified true copy thereof is hereto
attached and marked as Annexes “D” to “D-5”.

However, on 19 February 2018, the said office issued a Resolution

denying the “Motion for Reconsideration”, ratiocinating that there appears
no cogent reason to disturb the findings in the Resolution dated 3 January
2018, that the assailed resolution is in full accord with law and evidence, and
that herein complainant-appellant failed to adequately support her motion
with evidence that will warrant the reversal of the Resolution dated 3
January 2018. A certified true copy of the Resolution of the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City 19 February 2018 is hereto attached and
marked as Annexes “E” to “E-1”.

A copy of the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of

Valenzuela City dated 19 February 2018 was received through registered
mail by the Public Attorney’s Office-Valenzuela City District Office on 22
February 2018. This is evidenced by a certification from the Valenzuela
Central Post Office, which is hereto attached as Annex “F”.

Hence, this Petition for Review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

Respondent-Appellant contends that the Office of the City Prosecutor

of Valenzuela City committed a reversible error in not finding probable
cause to charge respondent-appellee for violation of R.A. 7610.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

To sustain conviction for violation Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610 there

must be proof that the laying of hands on a minor child is intended by the
accused to debase, degrade or demean his or her intrinsic worth and dignity
as a human being (Bongalin v. People, G.R. No. 169533, 20 March 2013).

4
However, intention is an internal state of mind which cannot be discerned by
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City through the conduct of a
preliminary investigation as in this case during which the respondent-
appellee was merely required to submit her counter-affidavit and the
affidavit of her witnesses, as well as any other supporting document which
may aid in her exoneration, if any;

It bears noting that the principal purpose for holding a preliminary

investigation is only to determine the existence of probable cause which, for
the purpose of filing a criminal information, refers to the presence of such
facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof (Fenequito, et
al. v. Vergara, Jr., G.R. No. 172829, 18 July 2012). In order to clearly
establish whether the respondent had an intention to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the complainant (who was then a
minor child at the time of the commission of the offense) as a human being it
is pivotal that a full-blown trial be administered during which the judge
would have the opportunity of observing the demeanor of the parties and
their respective witness or witness, if any. The judge would then be able to
ascertain their credibility, the plausibility of their conflicting version of facts,
and more importantly, the long-term repercussion of respondent’s curse on
the cognitive development of the complainant as an erstwhile minor child
based, for example, on the psychological finding of a competent behavioral
scientist from a reputable institution;

It is also not amiss to say that the defense interposed by respondent-

appellee and her witnesses is in the nature of a denial. It is elementary
evidentiary rule that denial is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail
against positive identification. In People of the Phils. v. Mateo (G.R. No.
179036, 28 July 2008), the Supreme Court had occasion to state that a
defense of denial, which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no
weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over
convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters;
and

In this case, the complainant-appellant positively identified

respondent-appellee as the person who lambasted her with unsavory words.
Her version has greater weight compared to the negative statement of the
respondent-appellee. If anything, respondent-appellee’s defense of denial
could have been aptly ventilated in a formal, trial-type proceeding at which
the judge would personally hear the testimony of the parties, observe their
demeanor and the manner in which they testified during the trial.

5
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

unto this Honorable Office that the Resolutions of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Valenzuela City dated 3 February 2018 and 19 February 2018
be reversed and set aside and a new one be issued recommending the filing
of a criminal case against respondent-appellee for violation of R.A. 7610.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 5 March 2018.

JESSICA SAN JUAN y LAMSEN

Complainant-Appellant

With the assistance of:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
RD
3 Floor, Post Office Bldg., Justice Hall Compound,
C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,
Malinta, Valenzuela City

Through:

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP No. 1012177 / CALMANA
Admitted to the Bar on April 29, 2015
MCLE Compliance V – 0011951

Copy furnished:

Leah Valdez
Block 1, C. Molina St., Veinte Reales, Valenzuela City
Philpost registry return no.: _______________________________

Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City (personally served)

Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Malinta, Valenzuela City

6
Atty. Telesforo T. Barbadillo, Jr.
Counsel for the Respondent-Appellee
Barbadillo Law Office
Rms. 301 & 303, No. 947 Bldg. Quirino Highway,
Novaliches Bayan, Quezon City
Philpost registry return no.: _______________________________

Explanation:

Copy of this Petition for Review was furnished to Leah Valdez and
Atty. Telesforo T. Barbadillo, Jr. through registered mail for lack of
personnel to effect personal service.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

7
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
VALENZUELA CITY ) SS
x--------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, JESSICA SAN JUAN y LAMSEN, Filipino, of legal age, single,

grade 12 student and resident of Block 1, C. Molina St., Veinte Reales,
Valenzuela City, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law,
deposes and states that:

1. That I am the complainant-appellant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition for

Review;

3. That I have read and understood the allegations contained therein

and the same are true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge; and

4. That I further certify that I have not heretofore commenced any

other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency;
that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; that if I should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, I will report that fact within ten (10) days from date of
notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

th
5 day of March 2018 in Valenzuela City.

JESSICA SAN JUAN y LAMSEN

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of March

2018 in Valenzuela City after affiant exhibited to me her competent evidence
of identity.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Pursuant to R.A. 9406

8
DOC. NO. 0403;
PAGE NO. 0029;
BOOK NO. 004;
SERIES OF 2018.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

VALENZUELA CITY ) SS
x--------------------------------x

DECLARATION OF COMPLETENESS

I, JESSICA SAN JUAN y LAMSEN, hereby declare that the

documents and annexes thereof hereto submitted electronically, in
accordance with the RULE ON ELECTRONIC FILING FOR PETITIONS
FOR REVIEW, are complete and faithful electronic reproductions thereof
filed with the Department of Justice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

th
5 day of March 2018 in Valenzuela City.

JESSICA SAN JUAN y LAMSEN

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of March

2018 in Valenzuela City after affiant exhibited to me her competent evidence
of identity.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Pursuant to R.A. 9406

DOC. NO. 0406;

PAGE NO. 0029;
BOOK NO. 004;
SERIES OF 2018.