REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
MANILA
REYNALYN SAN GABRIEL,
Complainant-Appellant,
-versus-

XV-17-INV-16H-745
For: Violation of R.A. 7277, as
DECEMBER DE GUZMAN and amended by R.A. 9442
MARK JOHN DE GUZMAN,
Respondents-Appellees.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMES NOW, Complainant-Appellant REYNALYN SAN
GABRIEL (henceforth referred to as Complainant-Appellant, for brevity),
assisted by the Public Attorneys Office, unto this Honorable Office, most
respectfully submits this Petition for Review and avers as follows:
NATURE OF PETITION
This is a Petition for Review filed pursuant to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 70, Series of 2000, otherwise known as the 2000
NPS Rule on Appeal, which seeks to set aside the Resolution of the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City dated 30 September 2016, as well
as the Resolution dated 24 October 2016, denying herein ComplainantAppellants Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 30
September 2016, which was received by Respondent-Appellant on 26
October 2016, as evidenced by an original certification (hereto attached as
Annex 1) which was issued by the Valenzuela Central Post Office on 27
October 2016.
THE PARTIES
Respondent-Appellee DECEMBER DE GUZMAN is the father of
Respondent-Appellee MARK JOHN DE GUZMAN (henceforth
collectively referred to as Respondents-Appellees, for brevity). They are
both Filipinos, of legal age and residents of 193-C Kabesang Imo St., Bilog,
Balangkas, Valenzuela City where they may be served with notices, orders
and other processes by this Honorable Office.

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

9 Siniguelas St., Bilog Balangkas, 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
Complainant-Appellant filed a complaint-affidavit and the affidavits
of her witnesses Roselinda E. Raymundo, Norberto R. Raymundo and
Joselito Guevara in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City on 3
August 2016, charging Respondents-Appellees with violation of Republic
Act No. 7277, as amended by Republic Act No. 9442, otherwise known as
the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons. The case was docketed as XV-17INV-16H-745. The duplicate original of the pro forma Investigation Data
Form from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, as well as
the above-adverted duplicate original complaint-affidavit and the affidavits
of Complainant-Appellants witnesses is hereto attached as Annexes 2 to
2-T.
Based on the aforesaid complaint-affidavit, Complainant-Appellant
was traversing Mansanas St., Bilog Balangkas, Valenzuela City at around
7:00 oclock in the morning on 20 August 2015 and was on her way to her
workplace in Lawa, Obando, Bulacan where she toils as a seamstress. At
about that time Respondent-Appellee December de Guzman and his
daughter, Maria Angela S. de Guzman, were standing close to the store of
Roselinda E. Raymundo. When Complainant-Appellant drew near
Respondent-Appellee December de Guzman the latter turned his head
towards the direction of Complainant-Appellant and heaped her with the
following expletives: MAY TOYO SA ULO! SIRA ULO. GAGO!
MAGNANAKAW ANG TATAY MO! MARAMI NG PALAISDAAN
ANG NARATING! When queried by Complainant-Appellant on whether
he has evidence to prove his claim Respondent-Appellee responded in the
affirmative. Consumed with immense humiliation Complainant-Appellant
then sped away as there were a lot of bystanders who witnessed the
vociferous exchange of words.
Complainant-Appellants narration of what took place on 20 August
2015 was corroborated by Roselinda E. Raymundo and her spouse, Norberto
R. Raymundo. According to their individual affidavits (see Annexes 2-R
to 2-S), in the morning of even date, Respondent-Appellee December de
Guzman borrowed a tire air inflator from Norberto R. Raymundo. Norberto
R. Raymundo then bided Roselinda E. Raymundo to lend the said tire air
inflator to Respondent-Appellee December de Guzman. While Roselinda E.
Raymundo and Respondent-Appellee December de Guzman were
conversing Complainant-Appellant passed by. Thereafter, RespondentAppellee December de Guzman cussed Complainant-Appellant.

The foregoing incident was followed by another contretemps between

Complainant-Appellant and Respondent-Appellant Mark John de Guzman
on 24 November 2015 at past 7:00 oclock in the morning. ComplainantAppellant stumbled upon Respondent-Appellant Mark John de Guzman
while she was walking along the stretch of Suha St., Bilog Balangkas,
Valenzuela City on said date and time. At that point, Respondent-Appellant
Mark John de Guzman looked at Complainant-Appellant with darting eyes
and vented these lamentable words, to wit: PUTANG INA MO! HAYOP
KA! GAGO! MAGNANAKAW ANG TATAY MO. MARAMI NG
PALAISDAANG NARATING. So as not to brook trouble ComplainantAppellant paid no heed to those hurtful accusations. She resumed walking,
but while she did so Respondent-Appellant Mark John de Guzman trailed
and cursed her even further. When she reached home, ComplainantAppellant unburdened to her parents what transpired between her and
Respondent-Appellant Mark John de Guzman. Complainant-Appellant,
accompanied by her mother, Aurora R. San Gabriel, then went to the
barangay hall of Barangay Bilog Balangkas, Valenzuela City to report and to
have the occurrence entered in its blotter (refer to Annex 2-H).
The condescending event on 24 November 2015 was witnessed by
Joselito Guevara (see Annex 2-T).
On 29 January 2016, Complainant-Appellant commenced a complaint
against Respondents-Appellants before the Office of the Lupong
Tagapamaya of Barangay Bilog Balangkas, Valenzuela City. The parties
were then summoned to attend a series of conciliation conferences before it
on 21 February 2016, 28 February 2016 and 8 March 2016, but
Respondents-Appellants failed to appear on said dates causing the Lupon to
issue a Certificate to File Action (refer to Annex 2-K).
Subsequently, Complainant-Appellant, as aforesaid, filed a
complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City (see
Annexes 2 to 2-T). On the other hand, Respondents-Appellees filed
their counter-affidavit denominated as Pinagsamang Pagsalungat na
Sinumpaang Salaysay on 15 August 2016 (a duplicate original of which,
together with it annexes, are hereto attached as Annexes 3 to 3-WW).
Unmoved, Complainant-Appellant filed a reply-affidavit denominated as
Tugon-Salaysay to controvert the allegations of Respondents-Appellees in
their counter-affidavit. A duplicate original of said reply-affidavit is hereto
attached as Annexes 4 to 4-D.
On 30 September 2016, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City issued a Resolution (a duplicate original of which is hereto
attached as Annexes 5 to 5-A) dismissing the complaint against
Respondents-Appellees for lack of merit. The said Office asseverated that
Complainant-Appellant failed to allege that Respondents-Appellees were
aware that she is a person with disability as to bring her case within the
ambit of Republic Act No. 7277, as amended by Republic Act No. 9442,
3

otherwise known as Magna Carta for Disabled Persons. The pertinent

portion of the resolution is hereunder reproduced as follows:
xxx [C]omplainant now claims that R.A. No. 7277
was violated. However, complainant never alleged for
[sic] claimed that respondents were fully aware of her
coverage under R.A. 7277. Since the respondents were
not aware or have known [sic] that complainant was
covered by R.A. 7277, they could not have possible
violated said law.
Dissatisfied with the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Valenzuela City, Complainant-Appellant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on 14 October 2016 (a duplicate original of which is hereto
attached as Annexes 6 to 6-G). On 24 October 2016, however, the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City issued a Resolution (a copy
of which is hereto attached as Annex 7) dismissing the aforesaid Motion
for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Hence, this Petition for Review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Complainant-Appellant contends that the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Valenzuela City committed a reversible error in dismissing the
complaint she instituted against Respondents-Appellees.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Prefatorily, Sections 4, 40, 41, 42 and 46 of Republic Act No. 7277, as
amended by Republic Act No. 9442, otherwise known as the Magna Carta
for Disabled Persons provides as follows:
SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this
Act, these terms are defined as follows:
(a). Disabled Persons are
restriction of different abilities,
physical or sensory impairment,
the manner or within the range
human being;

those suffering from

as a result of a mental,
to perform an activity in
considered normal for a

xxxx
SEC. 40. No individual, group or community shall
execute any of these acts of ridicule against persons with
4

disability in any time and place which could intimidate or

result in loss of self-esteem of the latter.
SEC 41. Vilification. For purposes of this Chapter,
vilification shall be defined as:
(a) The utterance of slanderous and abusive statements
against a person with disability; and/or
(b) An activity in public which incites hatred towards,
serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of persons
with disability.
SEC. 42. Any individual, group or community is hereby
prohibited from vilifying any person with disability
which could result into loss of self-esteem of the latter.
SEC. 46. Penal Clause. (a) Any person who violates
any provision of this Act shall suffer the following
penalties:
(1) For the first violation, a fine of not less than Fifty
Thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but not exceeding One
hundred
thousand
pesos
(P100,000.00)
or
imprisonment of not less than six months but not
more than two years, or both at the discretion of the
court; and
(2) For any subsequent violation, a fine of not less than
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not
exceeding
Two
hundred
thousand
pesos
(P200,000.00) or imprisonment for not less than two
years but not more than six years, or both at the
discretion of the court.
Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Magna
Carta for Disabled Persons, among others, defines mental disability as a
disability resulting from organic brain syndromes (such as, but not limited
to, mental retardation, acquired lesions of the central nervous system,
dementia) and mental illnesses (such as psychotic and non-psychotic
disorders).
Complainant-Appellant is afflicted with epilepsy, a neurological
disorder seizures characterized by seizures that can vary from brief and
nearly undetectable to long periods of vigorous shaking. This is evidenced
by Complainant-Appellants PWD identification card (Annex 2-L), her
medical certificate which was issued by the Valenzuela City Emergency
Hospital (Annex 2-M), her medical prescriptions (Annexes 2-N to 25

O) and forms from the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center (Annexes 2P to 2-Q).
Coming now to the instant case, there is no truth to the assertion of the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City that Complainant-Appellant
omitted to assert that Respondents-Appellants were cognizant of her mental
disability. In fact, the reply-affidavit (see Annexes 5 to 5-D) she
submitted to Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City contained an
averment to the effect that it is impossible for Respondents-Appellants to
feign ignorance of the existence of Complainant-Appellants epilepsy given
that they are relatives (i.e., Respondent-Appellee December de Guzman
being Complainant-Appellants uncle and Respondent-Appellee Mark John
de Guzman being Complainant-Appellants first cousin) and given that they
have been neighbors for decades.
So, too, Section 41 of Republic Act No. 7277, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9442, does not require that the person uttering slanderous
and abusive statements or performing in public an act which incites hatred
towards, serious contempt for, or causes severe ridicule to persons with
disability be actually aware that the person to whom the utterance or act is
directed is a person of disability. This is necessarily so because said statutory
act is a malum prohibitum is of no consequence. What is important is
whether the law has been violated.
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 30 September 2016 and 24 October
2016 be reversed and set aside and a new one be issued finding probable
cause to charge Respondents-Appellees for violation of Republic Act No.
7277, as amended by Republic Act No. 9442.
Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 3 November 2016.
REYNALYN SAN GABRIEL
Complainant-Appellant
With the assistance of:
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
6

3RD Floor, Post Office Bldg.

Justice Hall Compound,
Malinta, Valenzuela City
Through:
ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN
Public Attorney I
Roll No. 64684
IBP No. 1012177
Admitted to the Bar on April 29, 2015
MCLE Compliance V 0011951 dated Nov. 11, 2015
Copy furnished:
December de Guzman
193-C Kabesang Imo St., Bilog, Balangkas, Valenzuela City
Registry Return Receipt No. RD 673 434 429 ZZ dated 4 November 2016
Mark John de Guzman
193-C Kabesang Imo St., Bilog, Balangkas, Valenzuela City
Registry Return Receipt No. RD 673 434 786 ZZ dated 4 November 2016
Office of the City Prosecutor
Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Malinta, Valenzuela City
Explanation:
Copy of this Petition for Review was furnished to Mark John de
Guzman and December de Guzman for lack of personnel to effect personal
service.
ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

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

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, REYNALYN SAN GABRIEL, under oath state:
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;
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
3rd day of November 2016 in the City of Valenzuela.
REYNALYN SAN GABRIEL
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of
November 2016 in the City of Valenzuela.
ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN
Public Attorney I
Administering Officer
Pursuant to R.A. 9406
DOC NO. 2692
PAGE NO. 148;
BOOK NO. 002;
SERIES OF 2016.