Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court in Cities

First Judicial Region
Second Branch
Baguio City

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE
Plaintiff, NO. 136122-23

-versus- FOR: UNJUST

VEXATION
PATRICK RYAN DE LEON,
Accused.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

The herein private complainant, Aliana Cristel Pacuan

Abraham, is a call center team leader at Convergys Camp John
Hay, Baguio City. She is currently residing at #46 St. Anthony
Street, Mirador Hill, Baguio City.

The accused, Patrick Ryan De Leon, is an Operations

Manager of EBAY NA Escalations at the 4th Floor of Convergys
Camp John Hay, Baguio City.

That on November 15, 2016, at around 1 o’clock in the

morning at the 3rd floor of Convergys Building, Camp John Hay,
Baguio City, the accused, Patrick Ryan De Leon (Patrick) went
near the complainant, Aliana Cristel Pacuan Abraham (Aliana)
and caressed (haplos) her nape, demanded from the
complainant to talk with him personally for 15 minutes at his
own station.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 2
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

The incident and what transpired thereafter was the

subject of the instant criminal case.
On February 10, 2017, an information for Unjust Vexation was filed
against the accused, upon the complaint of Aliana Abraham.
The information reads as follows:
The undersigned accuses PATRICK RYAN DE LEON
of the crime of UNJUST VEXATION committed as follows:
That on or about the 15th day of NOVEMBER 2016,
in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without justifiable cause whatsoever, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously vex, and
annoy the complainant, ALIANA CRISTEL PACUAN
ABRAHAM by caressing her nape, to her great annoyance,
embarrassment and disgust.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

THE PROCEEDINGS:

The original complaint alleged an incident of Sexual harassment

but the Prosecution recommended the same to be dismissed for lack of
probable cause. The City Prosecutor alternatively recommended that the
complaint be one of Unjust Vexation as there was probable cause for the
indictment for two (2) counts of UNJUST VEXATION under the second
paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. This case was raffled
to Branch 2 this Court. The City Prosecutor likewise made a request to
consider the Consolidation of the two (2) criminal informations, both for
UNJUST VEXATION. This Court granted the request in compliance with
AM No. 16-01-1 as the two (2) complaints stemmed from a single
complainant against the same respondent/accused which involves the
same or similar facts, and transpired on the same date. A Motion to
Suspend Arraignment and Defer Proceedings was filed by the Defendant
requesting for the suspension of the proceedings including the
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 3
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

arraignment in in order to await the outcome of the Defendant’s Motion

for Reconsideration to be filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor.
The Court reset the arraignment without necessarily suspending the
proceedings. In a resolution dated November 16, 2017, the Regional
Prosecutor dismissed the petition for review field by the defendant as the
finding of probable cause for unjust vexation must stand. Pre-trial
promptly ensued.
During the conference, the prosecution and defense stipulated on
the identity of the accused as the same person charged and arraigned in
these two (2) cases; that the private complainant Aliana Cristel Pacuan
Abraham and the defendant are co-workers at Convergys Camp John Hay
in Baguio City, the jurisdiction of this Court; that the private complainant
is a Team Leader in Convergys and the Defendant is an Operations
Manager; that the accused filed a case for Unjust Vexation. The
prosecution marked in evidence (for Criminal Case No. 136122-23),
Exhibit “A”, the Judicial Affidavit/Sworn Statement of the private
complainant in entirety; “A-1”, the Name and Signature of the Private
Complainant, Aliana Cristel Pacuan Abraham, “B” the Judicial Affidavit /
sworn statement of Michelle Molina Cayanan, “B-1” Name and Signature,
“C” Print-out of the email dated December 25, 2016, “D” Resignation
letter of the private complainant (reserved), “E” Action reply of the
company with regard to the resignation letter (reserved).
The defense marked for both cases Exhibit “1” the Affidavit of
Aldrin Tolentino; “2” Affidavit of Dana Isabel Bagay;”3” Affidavit of Elma
Calagui; “4” Affidavit of Lorelyn Doss; “5” Affidavit of Myles Kevin Anub;
“6” Affidavit of Valerie Marie Yuvienco; “7” Print-out of email of Senior
Operations Manager David Tomlinson congratulating Mr. De Leon for his
supposed future promotion; “8” Screenshot of the Minutes of the Site
Leadership Meeting held on October 14, 2016; “8-1” Printout of the text
file of the entire site meeting; “9 to 9-C” Photographs of the private
complainant which were taken prior to the complaint, showing the
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 4
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

private complainant and her witness in physical contact with the

accused; “10” Photographs of the town hall meeting previously marked
as “9-D” and “9-E”; “11” Notice of the Dismissal of the Private complainant
(reserved) and “12” Counter Affidavit of the Accused.
Their respective witnesses named and issued defined, the case
proceeded to trial.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Private
Complainant Aliana Cristel Pacuan Abraham; and (2) Michelle Molina
Cayanan as corroborating witness.
For their part, the defense presented (1) the accused himself
Patrick Ryan De Leon1 ; (2) Aldrin Tolentino2 as corroborating witness;
(3) Dana Isabel Bagay3 as corroborating witness; (4) Elma Calagui4 as
another witness; (5) Lorelyn Doss5 as witness for the defendant; (6)
Myles Kevin Anub6 as corroborating witness; (7) Valerie Marie Yuvienco7
as another corroborating witness; and (8) Jeff Ramos8 as witness.

Version of the Prosecution:

In her complaint and the judicial affidavit 9 she thereafter
executed, which comprised her testimony in court, the private
complainant Aliana Cristel Pacuan Abraham testified thus:
On November 15, 2016, at around 1 o’clock in the morning at the
3rd floor of Convergys Building, Camp John Hay, Baguio City, while she
was at her work station. Respondent RYAN went near her and caressed
(haplos) her nape, and demanded from the complainant to talk with him
personally for 15 minutes at his own station. In response, complainant
immediately stood up and went away from RYAN then left complainant’s

1
May 22, 2018
2
May 9, 2018
3
May 9, 2018
4
May 16, 2018
5
May 16, 2018
6
May 22, 2018
7
April 25, 2018
8
April 23, 2018
9
See Exhibit “A” Judicial Affidavit of Aliana Abraham, p 1 Resolution.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 5
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

station. Thereafter complainant sought the help of Michelle Molina

Cayanan about the matter. 10
After a while, RYAN returned, and again demanded from
complainant ALI for them to talk at his station, and once more RYAN
caressed the nape of the complainant. The latter stood up and went away
from RYAN telling the latter to stop touching her because she did not like
it and she is not comfortable. Michelle intervened and told RYAN that
complainant would talk to him some other time. Before leaving
complainant’s station, RYAN angrily said to the complainant – “Ali, 2 min.
dun tayo sa station ko”11
After the incident, complainant lodged a complaint with the HR
Manager which resulted to RYAN being suspended for 12 days and
transferred to EBAY NA Escalations Department located at the 4th floor of
the Convergys Building. Despite the transfer, the complainant claims that
the respondent still went to the Department where the incident
happened and this made her uncomfortable. She further claims that being
an employee (tauhan), she felt offended (nabastos) with the acts of RYAN
as the incidents were only among the several instances that RYAN did the
same things to her. She also recalls that RYAN started his acts of touching
her nape sometime in September of 2016.12 The complainant claims that
the respondent constantly demands her to talk even if she already feels
uncomfortable especially in instances when they would talk in a room for
about two (2) hours about his plans of removing Team Leaders when he
becomes an Officer-in-Charge Senior Operations Manager. 13
In another Judicial Affidavit14 of a witness Michelle Molina Cayanan
(Michelle), a Team Leader of Call Center Agents at Convergys Camp John
Hay, Baguio City, and testimony would be given to support the allegations
of the complainant.

10
See Exhibit “A” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
11
See Exhibit “A” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 10 and 11.
12
See Exhibit “A” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 12, 13 and 15.
13
See Exhibit “A” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 15.
14
See Exhibit “B” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 2 and 3.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 6
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

On the alleged date of the incident, Witness MICHELLE was at the

station table of Team Leader Ali at the 3rd floor of Convergys Building at
Camp John Hay, Baguio City checking email on her computer. She was
about 1 meter away when she observed that when RYAN approached ALI,
he caressed her nape while saying “kanina pa kitang gusting makausap,
kanina pa kita hinahanting, kanina pa kita inaabangan”.MICHELLE claims
that ALI stood up and said to RYAN (alyas Tyke) “mamaya nalang po OM.”
However, RYAN insisted to talk to her for 15 minutes at his station before
leaving and went back to his station for less than a minute and went back
again to ALI and demanded her to talk to him.15 Before Tyke approached
her Station Table, ALI asked for help saying “Cayanan tulungan mo ako.”
RYAN was nearly approaching and MICHELLE intervened and told him to
talk to ALI later. 16

When asked about a second incident, MICHELLE said that she saw
RYAN caress the nape of ALI saying “come on, let’s talk na, kahit 5 minutes
lang” and that was where ALI reacted and said “pwede ba wag ninyo
akong hawakan, di po kasi ako comportable.”17MICHELLE would further
say that when they had a project called EOSD which was handled by ALI,
MICHELLE noticed how RYAN would demand to talk to ALI personally
and RYAN was always going to her station and would stay for maybe ab
hour or more talking to her and he was always touching ALI’s nape, if not
her shoulder and back. 18

Version of the Defense:

For his part, the accused vehemently denied the allegations against
him. In his counter-affidavit19, he thereafter executed and which
comprised his direct testimony in the instant case, Ryan, denied uttering

15
See Exhibit “B” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 5.
16
See Exhibit “B” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 6 and 7.
17
See Exhibit “B” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 8.
18
See Exhibit “B” Judicial Affidavit, Q and A No. 15 and 16.
19
See Counter Affidavit , p. 2.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 7
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

the words and performed acts leading to the filing of unjust vexation
against him. Ryan claims that the allegations put forth by the
Complainant from part of a malicious tale carefully brewed, albeit bland.
It is calculated to: (a) falsely impute upon his person a wrong doing; (b)
cost him his career; and (c) rock his marriage and family life. Ryan also
strongly denies the allegation that ALI is his employee. RYAN claims that
both of them are employees of Convergys Philippines who work at the
Baguio City site. Prior to his transfer to another department, they both
worked in the same line of business for a client of Convergys, but she
(ALI) directly reported to one Operations Manager Feben Bueza.
Complainant is not under respondent’s direct control and supervision.20

He further denies the allegations through the testimonies of six (6)

witnesses in their respective Affidavits. The first witness Aldrin
Tolentino stated in part in his Judicial Affidavit that:
“2. ALI joined the management team way back in
November 2015. We belonged on the same
band where we cater to open the shift. Unlike
me, she directly reported to Operations Manager
Feben Bueza;”21

Dana Isabel Bagay’s Affidavit narrates:

“2. ALI and MICHELLE answer directly to Operations
Manager Feben Bueza, and Mr. Bueza is directly
Responsible for their performance in the workplace;”22

Elma Calagui, in her Affidavit declares:

“3. Though ALI has been reporting directly to another
Operations Manager, Feben Bueza, Tyke and ALI still
Built a good friendship xxx”23

20
See Counter Affidavit p. 2-3.
21
Annex “1”p.1.
22
Annex “2”p.1.
23
Annex “3”p.1.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 8
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

Lorelyn Doss’ Affidavit likewise says:

“2. ALI is my co-worker. We are assigned to the same division
but she directly reports to Operations Manager Feben Bueza.
The people directly reporting under Feben Bueza are
collectively referred to as Team Bueza;”24

Myles Kevin Anub (in his affidavit)

“2. Prior to his transfer to another department RYAN
was my Operations Manager when I moved to the
team. ALI is also part of the North America Sell Team
Department but she directly reports to Operations
Manager Feben Bueza;”25

And Valerie Yuvienco’s Affidavit clearly asserts:

“2. Despite the fact that ALI was under Feben Bueza,
that did not stop her from forming a friendship with
Operations Manager Patrick De Leon;”26

To further support the claim of the respondent that contrary to the

allegations of the Complainant, respondent RYAN neither rubbed nor
touched the nape of ALI and she declared in her Affidavit:
“6. X x x there was no instance wherein Tyke (RYAN)
rubbed or stroked ALI’s nape because I was present the
entire time during the incident. Tapping a colleague on
the shoulders is normal practice in our workplace
and I have seen this sort of interaction between co-
workers all the time, and it was a rare occasion that
anyone ever complained about this kind of behavior;”27

The respondent further asserts that the Complainant, along with

her Witness MICHELLE launched their vicious attacks against him only

24
Annex “4”p.1.
25
Annex “5”p.1.
26
Annex “6”p.1.
27
Annex “6”p.2.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 9
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

after they discovered, and were told that he (RYAN) was supposed to
replace one Derrick Rondez as Site Operations Manager.
Defendant claims that
In his Judicial Affidavit28, witness Dominador Jeffrey Ramos who is
currently a Senior Operations Manager of Convergys Baguio stated that:
11. there were two medical certificates that were altered by the
complainant…x x x.. the first medical certificate was submitted on
August 19, 2017. The said medical certificate was dated August 3, 2017
and signed by Dr. Angelo Rome Andaya. The second medical certificate
was submitted on August 21, 2017 and dated August 7, 2017 signed by
Dr. Isagani Garin. x x x29
16. Dr. Quitasol, one of the company physicians reviewed the medical
certificates and found an alteration in the number of days for bed rest
recommended by the physician who signed the medical certificate. The
number 1-2 days was altered into 4-12 days by the complainant.30

The witness then sent ALI a “Show Cause Notice” as per company
policy. However, despite receiving the notice, ALI never reported to
explain the said anomaly in her medical certificate and has since stopped
reporting to work.

Recommendation – Discussion
Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
Art. 287. Light coercions. Any person, who by means
of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for
the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in
no case less than 75 pesos.

28
See Judicial Affidavit of witness, p.
29
Judicial Affidavit Q and A No. 10.
30
Judicial Affidavit Q and A No. 16.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 10
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be

punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 to 200
pesos, or both.

The second paragraph of the Article is broad enough to include any

human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm,
could not justifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. Compulsion or
restraint need not be alleged in the Information, for the crime of unjust vexation
may exist without compulsion or restraint. However, in unjust vexation,
being a felony by dolo, malice is an inherent element of the crime. Good
faith is a good defense to a charge for unjust vexation because good faith
negates malice. The paramount question to be considered is whether the
offender is an act caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. 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. It is unlawful for any person to take into his own
hands the administration of justice.31
In one case, an accused was convicted of unjust vexation for the act
of compelling the complainant to do something against his will, by
holding the latter around the neck and dragging him from the latter’s
residence to the police outpost.32 In another, the accused was prosecuted
for unjust vexation for the act of embracing and taking hold of the wrist
of the complainant.33
In a decided case, an accused was convicted of unjust vexation for
the act of threatening the complainant by holding and pushing his
shoulder and uttering to the latter in a threatening tone the following
words: “What inspection did you make to my sister in the mountain when

31
People v. Nebreja, 76 Phil. 119, 1946.
32
People v. Yanga, 100 Phil. 385, November 28, 1956.
33
People v. Abuy, G.R. No. L-17616, May 30, 1962.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 11
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

you are not connected with the Bureau of Education?”34 The Supreme
Court also held that the absence of an allegation of “lewd design” in a
complaint for acts of lasciviousness converts the act into unjust
vexation.35 It has also been held that accused were found guilty of unjust
vexation under an information charging them with the offense of
offending religious feelings, by the performance of acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful.36
In a decided case, an accused was convicted of unjust vexation for
the act of grabbing the left breast of the complainant against her will;37
In another cases, the act of abruptly cutting off the electric, water pipe
and telephone lines of a business establishment causing interruption of
its business operations during peak hours was held as unjust vexation.38
No act is a crime unless it is made so by statute. The state having
the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well defined
limitations, has a right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime,
as well as what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof
shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the
defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and
are not committed with any criminal intent or intention.”39
Ultimately, it is the person to whom the vexing act is directed that
determines whether unjust vexation had been committed. The crime of
unjust vexation is broad enough to include any human conduct that
although not productive of some physical or material harm, could
justifiably annoy or vex an innocent person.40
In this case, the complainant has categorically declared that
respondent touched or caressed her nape in two (2) separate occasions.
It was established that the acts of the respondent caused disturbance,

34
People v. Carreon, G.R. No. L-17920, May 30, 1962.
35
People v. Gilo, G.R. No. L-18202, April 30, 1964.
36
Andal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-29814, March 28, 1969.
37
People v. Maravilla, G.R. No. L-47646, September 19, 1988.
38
Kwan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113006, November 23, 2000.
39
Dizon-Pamintuan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994
40
People v. Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, 13 October 2009.
Criminal Case No. 136122-23 12
Pp. v De Leon
DECISION

vexation and/or annoyance to the complainant. The allegation of the

incident in the HR department of the company where both complainant
and respondent worked resulted to the twelve (12) day suspension of the
accused. This shows that even within the company and its own internal
administration, the complainant’s claim was given credence.

SO ORDERED.

DONE IN CHAMBERS, this day of 2018, Baguio City.

GLENDA T. ORTIZ – SORIANO

Presiding Judge