Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME C OURT
Manila

MARIANO P. FLORES,
Petitioner, Case No. 250755

-versus-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

PETITIONER MARIANO P. FLORES, by himself, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“The Constitution presumes a person innocent until proven guilty by

proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the defense's evidence for it has
the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused - ei incumbit
probatio qui elicit, non que negat — he who asserts, not he who denies, must
prove.”1

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1 GUILMER FRANCO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 191185,
FEBRUARY 01, 2016.
 This is an appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision dated June 19,
20192 of the Honorable Court of Appeals which denied the Petition for
Review filed by petitioner Mariano P. Flores for lack of merit. The
Honorable Court of Appeals likewise denied the subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 4, 20193.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

1. On June 11, 2019, petitioner through his former counsel, received the
Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals dated June 19, 2019,
denying the Petition for Review filed by petitioner. Thereafter,
petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 23, 2019. On
December ___, 2019, petitioner’s former counsel received a
Resolution dated December 4, 2019 denying their Motion for
Reconsideration.

2. Petitioner had fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Resolution dated
December 4, 2019 denying their Motion for Reconsideration, or until
December ___, 2019 within which to file a Petition for Review on
Certiorari with the Honorable Supreme Court pursuant to Section 2,
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, due to voluminous work of
his former legal counsel, the Public Attorney’s Office sought an
additional period of thirty (30) days by way of motion, or until

2 A certified true copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A”.

3 A certified true copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”.

 January 23, 2020, to file the said Petition which motion is allowed
under the Rules.

3. On January 17, 2020, the petitioner’s former legal counsel moves for
withdrawal of appearance as petitioner’s counsel;

4. On January 23, 2020, herein petitioner filed his Manifestation with

Motion, praying for an extension of thirty (30) days from January 23,
2020 or until February 23, 2020 within which to file his Petition for
Review on Certiorari;

5. On February 26, 2020, the petitioner filed his Amended Manifestation

with Motion, manifesting why he failed to file his Amended
Manifestation with Motion and moves to admit petitioner’s
Amended Manifestation with Motion;

6. The instant petition is thus being filed within the additional period
requested on petitioner’s Amended Manifestation with Motion dated
February 20, 2020. Copies of this Petition were served upon the
Office of the Solicitor General, Honorable Regional Trial Court,
Branch 197, and Honorable Court of Appeals.

THE PARTIES

7. Petitioner, MARIANO P. FLORES is of legal age, Filipino, and a

resident of Unit 112 Building 6, C-5 MRB Condominium, Barangay
Ususan, Taguig City, where he may be served with summons and
other legal processes.
 8. Respondent PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES is being represented in
this proceeding by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with
office address at No. 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati
City, where notices and other processes of this Honorable Court may
be served.

9. The REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 197 OF LAS PINAS

CITY is the court that affirmed with modification the Decision of
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 79 of Las Pinas City dated February
8, 2017.

10.The COURT OF APPEALS, which rendered the assailed Decision is

not impleaded as a party respondent in this case pursuant to Section
4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, but is being served
with a copy of the petition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
AND ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS

11.This case originated from an Information4 dated November 23, 2009

filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch 79,
charging the petitioner of the crime of Unjust Vexation, the
accusatory portion of which provides:

“That sometime in month of July 2008 up

to the year 2009, in the City of Las Pinas City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this

4 Attached hereto as Annex “C.

 Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, to annoy or
cause embarrassment, upon one Dra. Cleofe
Palac by then and there gossiping and accusing
the latter of inventing stories and circulating
confidential matters, thereby causing
annoyance, irritation and vexation to said
complainant.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

12.During the arraignment, the petitioner pleaded NOT GUILTY to the

crime charged. After the termination of the Preliminary Conference,
trial on the merits then ensued.

13.The evidence for the prosecution tends to establish that the petitioner
committed Unjust Vexation against the private complainant DR.
CLEOFE C. PALAC, (Dr. Palac), which started from July 2008 up to
20095. In her Complaint-Affidavit6, Dr. Palac averred that she used to
be the Guidance Director of Adamson University in San Marcelino
St., Manila. She was constrained to resign from her job at the said
school due to the emotional and psychological harassment that she
suffered in the hands of petitioner Mariano P. Flores, a student
therein. 7

5 TSN, August 20, 2010, pages 6 to 7.

6 Attached hereto as Annex “D”; Adopted as Dr. Palac’s Direct Testimony, TSN,
August 20, 2010, page 10.
7 Ibid., page 1.
 14.It started when Dr. Palac submitted an incidental report 8 to the
University President of Adamson University, Fr. Gregorio Banaga,
which was intended only for the latter and Fr. Francisco Nicolas
Magnaye, Jr. (Fr. Magnaye). The subject of the said report was certain
actions and behavior of the Student Assistants (SA) working at the
university, one of whom is the petitioner. The petitioner was not
singled out in the said report as it was a comprehensive one to put
matters in their proper perspective and to rectify or correct certain
behaviors of the subject SAs, and that petitioner’s name was just
mentioned in passing. 9

15. After the submission of the report, a meeting was held between Dr.
Palac and Fr. Magnaye, which resulted to different courses of action.
One of such actions was the referral of several SAs, including the
petitioner, to undergo counseling. Due to Dr. Palac’s
recommendation for the petitioner to undergo counseling, the latter
started to cause the former endless toil and worry because of the
latter’s violent actions. The petitioner started gossiping and accused
Dr. Palac of inventing stories and circulating confidential matters in
the Guidance Office, which according to Dr. Palac are untrue. 10

16.Aside from rumor-mongering and besmirching Dr. Palac’s good

name and reputation, the petitioner also filed charges against Dr.
Palac before the Office of the Vice-President for Student Affairs and
at the Philippine Guidance and Counseling Association Secretarial,
which were dismissed for lack of merit. 11

8 Annex “A” of the private complainant’s Complaint-Affidavit.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid., pages 1 to 2.

11 Ibid., page 2.
 17.Due to the endless headaches and problems given to her by the
petitioner, Dr. Palac decided to resign from Adamson University to
have her peace and transferred to University of Perpetual Help Las
Pinas City (UPH) beginning June 2009. 12

18.Dr. Palac thought that her problem with the petitioner had already
ended when she transferred to UPH until she received a summons
from the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) informing her
to file an Answer on the complaint filed by the petitioner for
Unprofessional and/or Dishonorable Conduct. Since that time, Dr.
Palac started to get reports from her maid and house members that a
man called them up over the phone at night looking for me and who
identified himself as Mariano Flores. 13

19.On November 6, 2009, MARIKIT ALBERTO (Marikit), secretary in

the Guidance Office, received from the petitioner a photocopy of the
Notice of Pre-Trial Conference14 from the PRC for Dr. Palac,15 Marikit
showed the said notice to MERLE TORRES (Merle), Guidance
Counselor, and the latter was alarmed since the notice was not
sealed, the same being confidential. Thereafter, Merle sent a text
message to Dr. Palac, informing the latter about the petitioner and the
notice of pre-trial conference, which he delivered to the office. 16

20.After being informed of the petitioner’s actuations, Dr. Palac reported

the incident to the police station and had the same recorded in the

12 Ibid., page 3.

13 Ibid.

14 Annex “H” of Dr. Palac’s Complaint-Affidavit, Annex “E” hereof.

15 See Annexes I to I-4 of Dr. Palac’s Complaint-Affidavit, Annex “E” hereof; TSN,
September 5, 2011, pages 5 to 7.
16 TSN, February 26, 2013, pages 5 to 11.
 17
police blotter. POLICE INSPECTOR BOBBE IMBO (P/Insp.
Imbo) prepared the Certification of Police Blotter 18 dated
November 11, 2009. 19

21.JEAN CLAIRE C. VIADO, Guidance Associate, who had no prior

knowledge that Dr. Palac had a pending case, saw the open letter that
was distributed by the petitioner. She claimed that the said letter was
not just distributed at their office because some students and
personnel of the adjacent office also had knowledge of the letter’s
contents. She added that Dr. Palac’s pending case in the PRC became
a by-word in their office and in the adjacent offices for a number of
weeks. 20

22.Dr. Palac likewise learned that the petitioner went to the different
offices of the UPH and distributed the Notice of Pre-Trial of the PRC
and told the people there that she has a pending case, which he filed
against her and that he is willing to show all the documents that he
have against her. 21

23.As a result of petitioner’s harassment, Dr. Palac started to have

sleepless nights and her appetite was badly affected that at one time
she was brought to the hospital due to stomach cramps. 22

24.Petitioner MARIANO P. FLORES, on the other hand, averred that he

was then a student assistant in Adamson University and assigned in
the Placement Office under the Guidance Office, headed by Dr. Palac,
17 Dr. Palac’s Complaint-Affidavit, page 3.

18 Annex “I” of Dr. Palac’s Complaint-Affidavit.

19 See P/Insp. Imbo’s stipulated testimony, Order dated October 15, 2015.

20 TSN, November 22, 2010, pages 7 to 11.

21 Dr. Palac’s Complaint-Affidavit, page 3.

22 Ibid.
 when the latter called him “barriotic” and “mentally sick”. One time,
Dr. Palac asked the petitioner to do a reflection letter and apology
letter. When Dr. Palac did not like what the petitioner wrote therein,
the former got mad and called the latter “bobo” and “tanga”. 23

25.Sometime in August 2008, the petitioner was surprised when he was

made to undergo counseling sessions even though he did not ask for
it and did not give his consent to the same. However, the Director of
the Office of Student Assistance and Scholarship, Ms. Alice Quilicot,
told the petitioner to follow Dr. Palac because the latter will
recommend if he could still continue his scholarship with the
university. 24

26.Thereafter, in October 2008, the petitioner was transferred from the

Placement Office to the Center for Language and Learning for him
and Dr. Palac to have some space. Around March 2009, the petitioner
learned that Dr. Palac’s employment contract was not renewed. 25

27.Thus, in May 2009, the petitioner filed a complaint against Dr. Palac
before the PRC for her misgivings as a licensed Guidance and
Counseling Practitioner. 26

28.Later, the petitioner found out that some persons from the University
of Perpetual Help (UPH) like the Executive Director of Student and
Personnel Services, Bona Mae Tionson (Tionson), and student,

23 See Petitioner’s Judicial Affidavit, page 2, Exhibit “6” for the Petitioner, which is
hereto attached as Annex “F”.
24 Ibid., page 2 to 3.

25 Ibid., page 3

26 Ibid.
 Dhavie Rivera (Rivera), have problems with Dr. Palac, who was then
the Guidance Director of UPH. 27

29.On November 6, 2009, the petitioner went to the UPH through the
invitation of Tionson, Rivera, and a staff of Dr. Palac to clarify his
case against Dr. Palac. The petitioner brought with him the Notice of
Preliminary Conference of his case against Dr. Palac because the
address for Dr. Palac that was indicated therein was still in Adamson
University and will not reach the latter. The petitioner goes out of his
way because he wanted Dr. Palac to attend the hearing at PRC so that
they could talk about the possibility of amicable settlement between
them. However, when the petitioner arrived at the UPH, Dr. Palac
was not around, so he left the notice in her office. The petitioner also
gave a copy to the office of Tionson. 28

30.Later, the petitioner found out that Dr. Palac wrote to the UPH’s
Security Office, prohibiting him from entering UPH’s premises. In the
said letter, the petitioner was described as a person afflicted with
“Paranoia and Schizoid Personality Disorder.” 29

31.Thereafter, the petitioner was surprised to learn that Dr. Palac filed a
complaint for Unjust Vexation against him. 30

32.After the parties were done presenting their respective evidence, on

February 8, 2017, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Las Pinas

27 Ibid., page 4.

28 Ibid., pages 4 to 5.

29 Ibid., page 5.

30 Ibid., page 6.
 City, Branch 79, rendered its Judgment31, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered,

finding that the Prosecution was able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the charge of Unjust
Vexation under Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised
Penal Code against MARIANO FLORES y
PEREZ FLORES (sic) is hereby pronounced
GUILTY, with the mitigating circumstances
of having no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed. The Court
considered the complainant and accused’s
long-time friction or animosity.
Mariano Flores y Perez is hereby
sentenced to pay the fine of one hundred
pesos (Php 100.00).

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

33.Aggrieved, on March 15, 2017, the petitioner filed a Notice of

Appeal32, which the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 79, in its
Order33 dated March 24, 2017, gave due course and elevated the case
to the Regional Trial Court.

34.After the case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas
City, Branch 197, the latter directed the parties to file their respective
Memorandum.

35.In his Memorandum34, the petitioner averred that his actions from
2008 up to June 2009 should not be taken into consideration in
31 Annex “G” hereof.

32 Annex “H” hereof.

33 Annex “I” hereof.

34 Attached hereto as Annex “J”.

 deciding the case considering that the same were committed in the
City of Manila, and the said actions had already prescribed. The
petitioner also alleged that the prosecution never presented the open
letter, which he allegedly prepared that tarnished the reputation of
Dr. Palac. He maintained that what was offered was a copy of Notice
of Pre-Trial Conference, which only showed the date and time of the
conference. The petitioner likewise averred that the testimonies of Dr.
Palac, Jean Viado, Merle Torres and Bobbe Imbo should not be given
weight considering that their testimonies were hearsay evidence
because they never witnessed him handling the alleged open letter
and distributed the same to the UPH’s campus. Moreover, the
petitioner averred that the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference is not a
confidential document under the PRC’s Administrative Rules and
Regulation in Administrative Investigation. Lastly, the petitioner
averred that even if he indeed handed the notice of pre-trial
conference to Dr. Palac’s secretary, he cannot be held guilty for the
crime of Unjust Vexation because his purpose for doing so was only
to inform Dr. Palac of the date and time of the pre-trial conference
and not to vex the latter. 35

36.The respondent, on the other hand, averred in its Memorandum 36

that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. It maintained that it is evident that from
the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and documentary evidence
that the petitioner committed Unjust Vexation to Dr. Palac due to the
former’s continuous harassments and acts that annoyed and vexed
the latter. 37

35 Ibid., pages 2 to 7.

36 Attached hereto as Annex “K”.

37 Ibid., page 1 to 2.
 37.Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch 197,
in its Decision38 dated August 4, 2017, affirmed with modification the
petitioner’s conviction, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, there being no

reversible error committed by the court a quo,
its finding are hereby AFFIRMED with
modification. The sentence of fine in the
amount of Php200.00, instead of Php100.00, is
hereby imposed upon the accused-appellant
Mariano P. Flores.
SO ORDERED.”

38.Disgruntled, the petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42

of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. 39

39.On January 19, 2018, respondent People of the Philippines filed its
Comment. 40

40.On February 14, 2018, the petitioner filed his Reply in the
aforementioned Comment. 41

41.Subsequently, both parties filed their respective Memorandum42;

42.On June 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision dated June

38 Annex “L” hereof.

39 Annex “M” hereof.

40 Annex “N” hereof.

41 Annex “O” hereof..

42 Attached hereto as Annex “P” and “Q” respectively.

 19, 201943, the dispositive portion of which is herein quoted as
follows:

“WHERFORE, premises considered, the

instant petition for review is DENIED.

Accordingly, the Decision dated 04

August 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
197, Las Piñas City, affirming with modification
the Judgment dated 08 February 2017 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 79, Las Piñas
City, is hereby SUSTAINED and UPHELD.

SO ORDERED.”

43.Petitioner timely sought reconsideration44 of the above Decision.

However, the Court of Appeals denied the same through the
Resolution dated December 4, 2019 (Annex “B” hereof) which was
received by the petitioner’s former counsel on December ___, 2019,
the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered,

the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed by
petitioner is hereby DENIED for utter lack of
merit. This Court’s Decision dated 19 June 2019
STANDS.

43 Annex “A” hereof.

44 Annex “R” hereof.

 SO ORDERED.”

44.Hence, petitioner is constrained to bring forth this appeal by way of

Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Honorable Supreme Court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER’S
CONVICTION FOR THE CRIME OF UNJUST VEXATION
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II.

WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
PETITIONER’S ACT OF HANDING A COPY OF THE
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE TO
DR. PALAC’S SECRETARY, MARIKIT ALBERTO,
CAUSED EMBARASSMENT TO DR. PALAC.

ARGUMENTS

I.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER’S
CONVICTION FOR THE CRIME OF UNJUST VEXATION
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
 PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

45.In dismissing the petitioner’s Petition for Review, the Honorable

Court of Appeals ruled:

“xxx

Here, the Court finds that the

prosecution has ably presented competent
and convincing evidence to prove that the acts
committed by petitioner have caused private
complainant Dr. Palac to experience distress
in mind and body, embarrassment, and
torment. In her complaint-affidavit, private
complainant specified in details these acts of
petitioner, to wit:

xxxx

11. From then on, he started gossiping

and accused me of “inventing stories and
circulating confidential matters in the
Guidance Office” which is of course untrue
because the reason for his transfer from one
department to another is his behavior….

12. Mr. Flores never stopped rumor-

mongering and besmirching my good name
and reputation. He claimed that when he was
undergoing counselling sessions under me, I
told him that he is mentally sick. This is not
true. Being the Guidance Director, I had no
first hand on counselling SA’s. I merely
evaluated the results of the counsellors under
my supervision and I made the appropriate
recommendations…

13. Mr. Flores did not stop there, he

filed charges against me xxx at the Office of
the Vice-President for Student Affairs Office
xxx and at the Philippine Guidance and
Counselling Association Secretarial xxx.
These were nothing but harassing suits.

xxxx

15. Due to the endless headaches and

problems that were given to me by Mr.
Flores while working at Adamson University,
I decided to resign to have my peace.

xxxx

18. From the time I received the said

summons, I started to get reports from my
maid and house members that a man called
me up over the phone at night looking for
me and who identified himself as Mariano
Flores…

19. xxx Mr. Flores went to the

University of Perpetual Help Las Pinas City
and distributed the notice of pre-trial issued
by the PRC in the said case. I felt very angry
because he has no right to ruin my name in
the said school by distributing such notice of
pre-trial when he very well knew that his case
was nothing but a harassment and false
complaint aimed to demean me and besmirch
my good name and reputation…

xxxx

21. Also, he started calling me at my

office and my staff would report [to] me of
[sic] the matter…

22. xxx Mr. Flores went to the different

offices of the University of Perpetual Help
Las Pinas City such as the School Director’s
Office, the Student Personnel Services, the
Guidance Counselling Office and the Human
Resource Development Office. He distributed
the notice of pre-trial [of] the PRC and he
told the people there that I have a case which
he filed against me and that he is willing to
show all the documents he has against me. In
fine, Mr. Flores is not content with the
harassing and malicious [sic] he filed against
me at the PRC and he is even trying to ruin
my good name and reputation…

23. As a result of these harassment calls

and activities of Mr. Flores, I started to have
sleepless nights. My appetite is also badly
affected and at one time, I was even brought
to the hospital due to stomach cramps xxx…
Even my work at school is already affected…

Contrary to the assertion of petitioner

that the above statements are self-serving, the
testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses
in court, particularly Jean Viado, Marikit
Alberto, and Merle Torres, did not only
substantially corroborate the testimony of
private complainant, it also reinforces the
latter’s tale of suffering caused by petitioner.

Moreover, petitioner’s lack of evidence

by the prosecution is belied by his very own
admission in court. For one, petitioner himself
admitted to personally delivering copies of
the Notice of Pre-Trial regarding private
complainant’s case at her office in University
of Perpetual Help (UPH), Second, petitioner
admitted that he left copies of the said Notice,
unsealed with private complainant’s secretary
at UPH. Third, petitioner also admitted giving
copies to Ms. Bona Mae Tiongson, the
Executive Director of the Student and
Personnel Services of UPH, and to Mr. Davie
Rivera, a UPH student who also had problems
with private complainant. Fourth, petitioner
confirmed that it was Davie Rivera who gave
the other copies to Dr. Loreto, the UPH
Administrator, and Dr. Silva, the UPH
Human Resource Director. This very act of
petitioner of distributing the notices, as well
as his eagerness to talk about it with other
non-parties who worked at the UPH, in which
private complainant was then the Guidance
Director, would show that petitioner’s
malicious attempt to discredit and embarrass
her even prior to the completion of the PRC
 case.

Furthermore, the admission of

petitioner of filing complaints simultaneously
before the Office of Student Affairs at
Adamson University and at the Philippine
Guidance and Counseling Association, both of
which were eventually dismissed. Likewise
reveals his deliberate intention to continually
vex pester, harass or annoy private
complainant.

xxxx”

46.With due respect, it is humbly submitted that the Honorable Court of

Appeals has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts, and
jurisprudence.

47.“In every criminal conviction, the prosecution is required to prove

two things beyond reasonable doubt: first, the fact of the
commission of the crime charged, or the presence of all the elements
of the offense; and second, the fact that the accused was the
perpetrator of the crime.”45

48.In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the fact of the commission
of the crime charged and the fact that the accused was the perpetrator
of Unjust Vexation against Dr. Palac.

49.First, the suffering allegedly caused by the petitioner’s acts are mere
self-serving statements to substantiate the charge. The private
45 Footnote 1.
 complainant’s allegations that the petitioner “never stopped rumor-
mongering and besmirching [the private complainant’s] good name
and reputation” are mere allegations unsubstantiated by the evidence
on record. 46

50.Ultimately, the charge against the petitioner hinges on the personal

service of the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, contained in an unsealed
envelope, made upon Mariquit Alberto, at the private complainant’s
office at the University of Perpetual Help. The private complainant
testified:

“Q: Would you agree with me that you filed

this case because you want to regress the
wrong committed to you by Mariano Flores?
A: No, I think that’s not the reason.”

Q: What is the reason, Madame Witness?

A: He will not stop following me, Sir. I left
Adamson already, and then he followed me in
Perpetual. That notice should not be given that
way, it should be given in a sealed envelope
and it should not be him personally giving it to
my office, and to other offices of the University
of Perpetual Help.” 47

51.It bears noting that the petitioner’s personal service of the said Notice
of Pre-Trial Conference is within the ambit of the modes of service
contemplated by Professional Regulation Commission’s Revised
Rules and Regulations in Administrative Investigations, 48 Section 1,

46 Please see testimonies of the corroborating witnesses: TSN, November 22, 2010,
testimony of Jean Viado (Annex “S”); TSN, September 5, 2011, testimony of Marikit
Alberto (Annex “T”); TSN, February 26, 2013, testimony of Merle Torres (Annex “U”).
47 TSN, October 20, 2010, testimony of Dra. Cleofe Palac, pages 12-13.

48 Footnote 49 of petitioner’s Reply to: Comment dated January 4, 2018 filed before
the Court of Appeals.
 Article VI (Pre-Trial Conference) of which clearly provides that”
“[t]he notice of pre-trial conference shall be served upon the
parties and their respective counsel.” The said provision does
not distinguish between service by a representative of the
Professional Regulation Commission or by a party to the Pre-
Trial Conference. A basic rule in statutory construction finds
application in this case, i.e, distinguit nec nos distinguire
debemus.49 When the law does not distinguish, we must not
50
distinguish. Thus, the petitioner’s personal service was
clearly in accordance with published procedure.

52.Furthermore, nowhere under Article VI on Pre-Trial

Conference in the Professional Regulation Commission’s
Revised Rules and Regulations in Administrative
Investigations does it provide that the proceedings of the said
Pre-Trial Conference are confidential. In fact, said rules limit
the application of confidentiality to Conciliation Proceedings
51
under Article III, which specifically provides that “[t]he
conciliation proceedings shall be confidential.” In this case, a
basic rule on statutory construction likewise applies, i.e.,
52
expression unius est exclusion alterius. “Where a statue, by
its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by
interpretation or construction, be extended to others.” 53 Thus,
without a provision on confidentiality applied to the provisions

49 Amores v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189600, June 29,
2010.
50 Ibid.

51 See Section 7, Article III on Conciliation Proceedings of the Professional

Regulation Commission’s Revised Rules and Regulations in Administrative
Investigations.
52 See Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo et al., G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006..

53 Ibid.
 on Pre-Trial Conference under Article VI of the Professional
Regulation Commission’s Revised Rules and Regulations in
Administrative Investigations, the petitioner cannot be faulted
for his personal service of the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference.

53.In fact, petitioner was doing the respondent a favor by

ensuring that she appear at the said Pre-Trial Conference.
Section 3, Article VI of the Professional Regulation
Commission’s Revised Rules and Regulations in
Administrative Investigations provides:

“Sec. 3. Failure to Appear at Pre-

Trial Conference. – xxx On the other
hand, failure on the part of the
respondent and/or his counsel to appear
shall be a cause to allow the complainant
to present evidence ex-parte and for
judgment to be rendered on the basis
thereof.”

54.The petitioner’s action only served to protect the private

complainant’s rights.

55.Moreover, considering that the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference

itself shows that the only address that appears therein where
the private complainant may be served notice is that at
“Adamson University 900 San Marcelino St., Ermita Manila,”
the petitioner is justified in having served the same a week
prior to the date stated therein, 54 at the private complainant’s
new office at the University of Perpetual Help. The only reason

54 The Notice of Pre-Trial Conference shows that the conference was scheduled on
November 16, 2009. The petitioner personally served the said notice on November 9,
2009.
 for the need to personally serve the said Notice of Pre-Trial
Conference at the private complainant’s new office address
was the latter’s failure to update the Professional Regulation
Commission regarding the same. The private complainant
testified:

“Q: And as appearing in that notice of

Pre-Trial Conference which you identified,
what is your stated address there?

A: Guidance Director, Guidance and

Counseling Center, Adamson University
900 San Marcelino St., Ermita, Manila,
Sir.

Q: But you are not employed in that office

anymore?

A: Yes, sir.” 55

xxx

“Q: But this noticed (sic), the Pre-Trial

Conference which you identified
during the last hearing marked as
Exhibit “H”, you did not receive it
while you were at Adamson?

A: Yes, sir.” 56

xxx xxx xxx

55 TSN, October 20, 2010, testimony of Dra. Cleofe Palac, page 8.

56 Id., page 9.
 Q: You said that the Philippine Regulatory
Commission knew your address. My question is, do
you have a notice of Pre-Trial Conference
stating that the scheduled hearing is on
November 16, 2009, with the address that you
claimed to be resided at?

A: They sent it to Adamson University, Sir.

Q: So, in other words, this is the only notice of Pre-trial

Conference that you have?

A: Yes, Sir.” 57

56.Thus, the petitioner could not be faulted for personally serving

the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference at the private complainant’s
new office address.

57.Second, prosecution witnesses Jean Viado’s and Merle Torres’

testimonies did not in fact corroborate the prosecution’s
version of events that the petitioner had allegedly distributed
confidential matters.

58.The private complainant, and the Regional Trial Court unjustly

assumed that the respondent had distributed copies of the
Notice of Pre-Trial Conference. The Regional Trial Court found
that “[the petitioner’s] distribution of the Notice and Subpoena
to persons not involved in the case as well as his eagerness to
talk about it reveal deliberate intention to pester, harass, or

57 Ibid.
 58
annoy the private complainant.” The records are bereft of
proof that the accused-appellant had indeed distributed the
said documents. Prosecution witness Jean Viado admitted:

“Q: Aside from your allegations, that it

was distributed to other offices, did you
actually see the accused distributed
[sic] that Pre-Trial Conference Notice?

A: No, Ma’am.

Q: So, you really don’t have concrete

proof or evidence aside from your
testimony that it was distributed?

A: I do not have concrete evidence

with regards [sic] to distribution.” 59

59.The same was confirmed by prosecution witness Viado on re-

direct:

“Q: And you saw the accused

distributed [sic] this?

A: No. Sir, I did not saw [sic] the accused

distributed this.”60

60.The same was further affirmed during the trial court’s clarificatory
questions:

58 Comment dated January 4, 2018, page 10, paragraph 28.

59 TSN, November 22, 2010, testimony of Viado, page 18. [Emphasis Supplied.]

60 Id., Page 21. [Emphasis Supplied.]

 “Q: Who was the one who showed to you the
Notice of Pre-Trial on November 6, 2009?

A: Someone showed by accident over the

shoulder glance.”

Q: And what do you mean by over the

shoulder glance?

A: I remember getting some documents from

the file cabinet which is adjacent to the table
of our receptionist Secretary reading and
once I look at it over [sic] I was noticed [sic]
that it was a Pre-Trial Order, Your, Honor.” 61

61.This only shows that it could have been some other unscrupulous
“someone” who allowed the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference to come
into the hands of another.

62.It is well settled, to the point of being elementary, that when

inculpatory facts are susceptible to two or more interpretations, one
of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, the evidence
does not fulfill or hurdle the test of moral certainty required for
62
conviction. Thus, contrary to the prosecution’s allegations,
the alleged fact that the said Notice of Pre-Trial Conference
came into the hands of another could not be imputed upon the
petitioner.

61 TSN, November 22, 2010, testimony of Viado, page 26. [Emphasis Supplied.].

62 People v. Estibal, G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014.

 63.The same may be said of prosecution witness Merle Torres, who
testified:

“Q: Did you personal received [sic] the Pre-

Trial Order?

A: From our secretary Ma’am.”

Q: Did Mr. Mariano Flores personally

handed [sic] to you the said Pre-Trial Order?

A: No, MA’AM [sic] 63

Q: So it was only from Ms. Marikit Alberto

that you knew of the said copy?

A: YES. MA’AM [sic].” 64

64.Thus, the prosecution’s allegation that the petitioner had “circulated

confidential matters” 65 is utterly without basis in evidence.

65.Third, the petitioner’s personal service upon the private

complainant’s secretary, Markit Alberto,66 does not constitute
circulation of confidential matters, as charged.

66.On the contrary, the petitioner’s reason for serving the same upon the
63 Ibid., page 9.

64 TSN, February 26, 2013, testimony of Merle Torres, page 14. [Emphasis Supplied.]

65 See Information for Criminal Case No. 63162 dated November 23, 2009. [Italics and
emphases in the original.].
66 TSN, November 17, 2016, testimony of Mariano P. Flores, page 48.
 private complainant’s secretary is completely valid. The petitioner
testified:

“Q: You were likewise asked why you did not

wait for Dra. Palac at that time that you gave
the copy to Mr. JV Rivera?

A: Ms. Mariquit Alberto told me that Dr.

Palac will not come in already because [s]he
is already in the other branch. That’s why I
handed it to Ms. Mariquit, Ma’am.” 67

67.Considering that prosecution witness Alberto, as private

complainant’s secretary, had the very duty to receive notices on
private complainant’s behalf, the petitioner was justified in serving
the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference upon her in the private
complainant’s absence.

68. All told, the petitioner’s actions have consistently been in accord
with the very main purpose of the law on unjust vexation. In
Maderazo v. People, 68 the Supreme Court held that the “main purpose
of the law penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is precisely to
enforce the principle that no person may take the law into his hands
and that our government is one of law, not of men.” 69 It is unlawful
for any person to take into his own hands the administration
of justice.”70

67 TSN, November 17, 2016, testimony of Mariano P. Flores, pages 49-50.

68 Maderazo v. People, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006.

69 Ibid. [Emphasis Supplied.]

70 Ibid.
 69.In this case, contrary to the prosecution’s allegations, the petitioner
pursued his grievances through appropriate authorities, i.e., through
the processes of the Professional Regulation Commission. Thus, in
precisely not taking the law into his own hands, and instead, airing
his grievances through a duly constituted government regulatory
agency, the petitioner can be imputed with no fault in the present
case.

70.Therefore, considering all of the foregoing, there is more than

sufficient basis for the petitioner’s acquittal.

71.Furthermore, “A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard

against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire to
quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from
a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not
automatically cancel out the accused's claim that he did not do it. A
lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful
witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and
unequivocally, "He did it!" without blinking an eye.” 71

72.The facts and circumstances mentioned by the Honorable Court of

Appeals on its Decision dated June 19, 2019, taken together, are not
sufficient to justify the unequivocal conclusion that the petitioner
distributed the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference in University of
Perpetual Help (UPH). No other convincing evidence was presented
by the prosecution that would link him to the said action of the
petitioner. The fact the petitioner admitted that he personally
delivered the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference at private complainant’s

71 Guilmer Franco v People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191185, February 01, 2016.
 office in UPH; he left copies of the said notice, unsealed, with private
complainant’s secretary at UPH; he gave copies to Ms. Bona Mae
Tiongson, the Executive Director of the Student and Personnel
Services of UPH, and to Mr. Davie Rivera, a UPH student who also
had problems with private complainant; and he confirmed that it
was Davie Rivera who gave the other copies to Dr. Loreto, the UPH
Administrator, and Dr. Silva, the UPH Human Resource Director do
not necessarily point to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who
distributed said notice. In the appreciation of circumstantial
evidence, the rule is that the circumstances must be proved, and not
themselves presumed. The circumstantial evidence must exclude
the possibility that some other person has committed the offense. 72

73.A careful evaluation of the record reveals that Jean Viado STATED
during the clarification question of the Metropolitan Trial Court that
she saw the subject notice twice, she testified:

“COURT: You saw this document twice?

A: Yes, your Honor.”

“COURT:
Q: The first time that you saw it, it was
attached by itself?
A: Yes, your Honor.”

“Q: And the second time that you saw it, it

was attached to the Administrative
complaint filed by the students of the UPHR
against Dra. Palac?
A: Yes, you Honor.” 73
72 Ibid.

73 TSN, November 22, 2010, testimony of Jean Viado, pages 23-24.

 “ATTY. ARCEO:
Q: So, you mean Madam Witness, that there
was a complaint filed by the students of
Perpetual Help against Dra. Palac?
A: Yes, Ma’am.”

Q: Now, who showed you that Madam

witness?
A: The Admin of the University of Perpetual
Help Ma’am.” 74

74.Based on the foregoing, petitioner MARIANO P. FLORES, should

not be convicted of the crime Unjust Vexation. The prosecution failed
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt that he distributed the
subject notice of this case in UPH. As a rule, in order to support a
conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, all the
circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis that the
75
accused is guilty. In this case, not all the facts on which the
inference of guilt is based were proved. The issue that the former
distributed the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference which caused
embarrassment to the private complainant still remains uncertain.

75.The evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own weight and
76
not rely on the weakness of the defense. In the case at bar, the
petitioner admitted that he personally delivered the Notice of Pre-
Trial Conference at private complainant’s office in UPH; he left
copies of the said notice, unsealed, with private complainant’s
secretary at UPH; he gave copies to Ms. Bona Mae Tiongson, the
Executive Director of the Student and Personnel Services of UPH,

74 TSN, November 22, 2010, testimony of Jean Viado, page 24.

75 Footnote 71.

76 Ibid.
 and to Mr. Davie Rivera, a UPH student who also had problems
with private complainant; and he confirmed that it was Davie
Rivera who gave the other copies to Dr. Loreto, the UPH
Administrator, and Dr. Silva, the UPH Human Resource Director.
What he denied is that he did not distributed any confidential
matters in UPH. Denial may be weak but courts should not at once
look at them with disfavor. There are situations where an accused
may really have no other defenses but denial, which, if established to
be the truth, may tilt the scales of justice in his favor, especially when
the prosecution evidence itself is weak. 77

76.While it is true that denial partakes of the nature of negative and self-
serving evidence and is seldom given weight in law, the Court
admits an exception established by jurisprudence that the defense of
denial assumes: significance when the prosecution's evidence is such
that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The exception
applies in this instant case. The prosecution failed to produce
sufficient evidence to overturn the constitutional guarantee that
petitioner Mariano Flores is presumed to be innocent. Thus:

“The Constitution presumes a person

innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the defense's evidence for it has the onus
probandi in establishing the guilt of the
accused - ei incumbit probatio qui elicit, non que

77 Ibid.
 negat — he who asserts, not he who denies,
must prove.” 78

77.With regards to the contention of the Honorable Court of

Appeals that “the admission of petitioner of filing complaints
simultaneously before the Office of the Student Affairs at
Adamson University and at the Philippine Guidance and
Counselling Association, both of which were eventually
dismissed, likewise reveals his deliberate intention to
continually vex, pester, harass or annoy private complainant.
A careful examination of Transcript of Stenographer
Notes dated November 17, 201679 reveals that he never
mentioned that the aforementioned cases were eventually
dismissed.

78.Furthermore, it is worthy to mention that in Mariano P. Flores

versus Dr. Cleofe Palac (private complainant in the case of
origin), Administrative Case No. 64, the Honorable Board of
Guidance and Guidance Counseling ruled:

“xxx

On professionalism and competency issue of whether the

holding of the counseling sessions by five guidance counselors
with the complainant, as recommended by the Respondent
and in consultation with the said five counselors, was proper,
this Board finds it odd that the Respondent, being a RGC
and Director of the Guidance Office, who supposedly
received relevant trainings and presumably with
appropriate competency for the job, would have the right

78 Ibid.

79 Annex “V”.
 to approve the idea of five guidance counselors working
simultaneously with the Complainant for a certain
period of time. Even with the consent of the Complainant,
this counseling set-up is not always appropriate in the
counseling practice, especially in the case of the complainant,
who has been observed as reluctant or resistant to be
counseled. Aware of this circumstance, the respondent could
have asked the complainant to atleast identify or choose one
among the five recommended guidance counselors to work
with him. The oddity of the five guidance counselors

79.Moreover, in Mariano P. Flores versus Dr. Cleofe Palac (private

complainant in the case of origin), Administrative Case No. 04, the
Honorable Board of Psychology ruled:

“xxx. 

Respondent violated the Psychology Act of 2009 when she sent a

letter to the Security Officer of the University of Perpetual Help
Las Pinas to prohibit herein complainant from entering the said
school. 

In a letter dated November 9, 2009 addressed to the Security Officer

of the University of perpetual Help Rizal, herein respondent
requested that complainant be not allowed to or be prohibited from
entering the said school. Respondent in the same letter revealed the
result of the Counseling/Intervention conducted to herein
complainant and attached a copy thereof to the said letter. 
Section 30 of the Psychological Act states that, tow ti:

Section 30. Rights to Privilege Communication for

Psychologists and Psychometricians. - A psychologists or
psychometrician cannot, without the consent of the client/patient, be
examined on any communication or information disclosed and/or
acquired in the course of giving psychological services to such client.
The protection accorded herein shall extend to all pertinent records
and shall be available to the secretary, clerk or other staff of the
licensed psychologist or psychometrician. Any evidence obtained in
violation of this provision shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.

Hence, the information/s acquired and/or disclose during the said

counseling/intervention and the eventual result and/or evaluation
thereof is within the ambit of privilege communication between the
patient and the psychologist. And to disclose the said information
without the knowledge or against the will of the patient is clearly a
violation of the above mentioned section. 

The Board takes cognizance of the Decision rendered by the Board

of Guidance and Counseling. 

Respondent brought to this Board's attention the decision rendered

by the Honorable Board of Guidance and Counseling, convicting her
for unprofessional and or dishonorable conduct and rendering her a
penalty of reprimand. 

Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written

made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made. 

Hence, this Board now takes cognizance of such admission and will
take into consideration the decision therein. 
 From the records of the case it appears that herein Respondent
registered as Psychologist through Section 16 of R. A No. 10029 and
considering that one of the requirement therein is that one must be of
good moral character. The specific provision states:

Section 16. Registration Without Examination for Psychologists.

- A person who posseses the qualifications required to take the
examination for registration as a psychologist pursuant to the
provisions of this Act may be registered without examination:

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxxx

Section 12. Qualifications of Applicants for the Licensure

Examination for Psychologists. - Any person may apply to take
examination for registration and licensure as a psychologist after
furnishing evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant:

xxx xxx xxx

(d) Is of good moral character; and 

xxx xxx xxx

Herein respondent's conviction in the decision rendered by the

Honorable Board of Guidance and Counseling negates her claim of
good moral character and worst it violates her declaration in her
application and the Psychological Act of 2009.

xxx"

80.It is also worthy to mention that in Mariano P. Flores vs. Hon.

Assistant City Prosecutor Marlon Almero, the Honorable Department
of Justice ruled:
 “Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 constitution states: "Public office is a
public trust. Public Officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives" (underscoring supplied).

To earn their public trust, public prosecutors, as public officers,

should strive and see to it that justice is served. They should be
professional in the performance of their duties and conduct
themselves in the highest ethical standards of fairness, dignity,
impartiality and integrity with a view of preserving and enhancing
public confidence in the prosecution service. (Code of conduct for
Prosecutor's, Rationale and Purpose). In the performance of their
duties, public prosecutors should take all steps necessary to
safeguard the rights of People through competence, diligence,
without dedication, earnestness and vigor.

Bearing the above-mentioned in mind, in the prosecution of the libel

case filed by Mr. Mariano Flores against Dr. Palac, however, you
failed to exhibit these traits and to exert best efforts for the
protection of the interest of the private complainant, to serve the
ends of justice. Instead, there was a seeming neglect of duty and
failure to vigorously prosecute the case, as shown by the acts
enumerated by Mr. Flores in his performance administrative
complainant. Although as a prosecutor, you are given wide latitude
in the exercise of your discretion, the very least that you could have
done was to patiently explain to Mr. Flores your course of action to
assure him of your full support for his interest and your dedication to
duty.

In view of the foregoing, you are hereby ADMONISHED and

reminded to be more thorough and exhaustive in the performance of
your duties and functions, to avoid unfounded suspicions of
negligence and apathy on the part of the parties. You are likewise
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely.” 

81.Based on the foregoing premises, it is very clear that the

petitioner filed cases against the private complainant for the
former to get justice in all the unjust actions that the latter
committed against the petitioner contrary to the contention
of the Honorable Court of Appeals that it is intended to
 continually vex, pester, harass or annoy private
complainant.

II.

WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
PETITIONER’S ACT OF HANDING A COPY OF THE
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE TO
DR. PALAC’S SECRETARY, MARIKIT ALBERTO,
CAUSED EMBARASSMENT TO DR. PALAC.

82.Assuming but without admitting that the petitioner disseminated the

subject notice to several persons, the Court of Appeals gravely erred
in ruling that the petitioner’s alleged action caused embarrassment to
Dr. Palac. 80 It is humbly submitted that Viado’s testimony that Dr.
Palac became the subject of gossip within her circle, specifically
within Perpetual, 81 should not be given much weight and credence
by the trial court considering that in unjust vexation cases, “[t]he
paramount question to be considered is whether the offender’s act
caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the
mind of the person to whom it is directed.” 82
In this case, the
prosecution’s evidence is bereft of any evidence showing that Dr.
Palac was embarrassed or vexed by the alleged actions of the
petitioner.

83.As Jean Viado testified:

80 Court of Appeals Decision, page 8, Annex “A” hereof.

81 Ibid.

82 Maderazo, et al. v. People, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006.

 “Q: Madam Witness, you are again Jean
Viado, you are a totally distinct and different
person from Dra. Palac?
A: Yes, Ma’am.”

“Q: So, Madam Witness since you are a

different person to the complainant, you
cannot particularly or actually feel what she
feels?
A: No, Ma’am, I cannot feel what she
feels.”83

84.Moreover, the private complainant admitted that she was confined

first before the petitioner went to UPH, she averred:

“Q: I am now showing to you a medical

certificate from the University of Perpetual
Help Rizal Medical Center, which you
identified during the last hearing marked as
Exhibit “K”. You said that you went to this
hospital by reason of act committed by
Mariano Flores?

A: That was one of the effects sir.”

“Q: Can you state your date of admission on

that hospital?

A: It was October 20, 2009, Sir.”

83 TSN, November 22, 2010, testimony of Jean Viado, pages 18-19.

 “Q: And can you still remember the date
when Mariano Flores went to the Perpetual
Help and give the notice of Pre-Trial
Conference?

A: November 6, 2009, Sir.”

“Q: So, what happened first when you were

admitted?

A: I was admitted first, Sir.” 84

85.It must be noted that “in unjust vexation, being a felony by dolo,
85
malice is an inherent element of the crime.” In this case, the
prosecution’s evidence is bereft of any proof that the
petitioner’s purpose of handing the notice of preliminary
conference to Dr. Palac’s secretary, Marikit Alberto, was to vex,
annoy or embarrass the latter. On the contrary, what is extant
from the records are that the purposes of the petitioner in
handing the subject notice to Marikit Alberto was only for Dr.
Palac to be notified of their scheduled preliminary conference
86 87
before the PRC and to be a witness in the complaint filed
by students of UPH against the private complainants nothing
more.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari be

84 TSN, October 20, 2010, testimony of Dr. Cleofe Palac, pages 15 - 16.

85 Footnote 82.

86 TSN, November 17, 2016, pages 30 to 31, 36 to 37.

87 Footnote 73.
given DUE COURSE and, after consideration thereof, a decision be
rendered ACQUITTING the petitioner of the crime Unjust Vexation.

Other reliefs just and equitable are equally prayed for.

Manila Philippines, March 19, 2020.

MARIANO P. FLORES
(Petitioner)

Republic of the Philippines)

Quezon City ) S.S.

VERIFICATION
WITH

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, MARIANO P. FLORES of legal age and Filipino and currently

residing at Unit 1418 Penafrancia St., Brgy. 682 Zone 74, Paco Manila,
under oath depose and say that:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Petition for Review on Certiorari;
3. I have read and fully understood the contents thereof and affirm that
the factual statements therein made are true and correct to the best of
my own personal knowledge and belief;

4. I have filed or commenced an action involving the same parties

before the Board of Psychology of the Professional Regulations
Commission and such is still pending as of the filing of this Petition
for Certiorari;
 5. That I have not commenced any other court action or proceedings
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency aside from the case
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. To the best of my knowledge,
no such action or proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; If I should learn
thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending aside from the case mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I
hereby undertake to report the same fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and
sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

_____ day of __________ 2020 at Quezon City, Philippines.

MARIANO P. FLORES
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by affiant who appeared

before me and exhibited to me his
___________________________________________________ bearing the
photograph and signature of the affiant issued by the Republic of the
Philippines, this _____ day of _____ 2020 in ____________________,
Philippines.

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court)

Service of this Petition for Review on Certiorari was made on the

respondent’s counsel via registered mail instead of personal service due to
distance, time and manpower constraints.
 MARIANO P. FLORES

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village
1229 Makati City

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE

Regional Trial Court
Las Piñas City, Branch 197

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

(CA-G.R. CR NO. 40345)
Maria Orosa St., Ermita
1045 Manila