LAST week, I ran across a social media post of Quezon City councilor Alfred Vargas concerning the court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration on the case they earlier filed over the alleged bullying of their son by the child of Rob Sy and his partner Juvelle Bacosa.
What surprised me most was Vargas’ statement that their MR was denied because the chief prosecutor who penned the resolution said their case was founded on speculations.
I wrote on this matter before when the original case was filed. Based on the original complaint, the Vargas couple insists they actually witnessed firsthand the bullying of their son, along with other parents who they say also witnessed the act.
In the said event, Vargas claims, several other people personally witnessed the minor pushing his child at the side area of the pool during warm-up period right before the competition, almost injuring his son.
The Vargases stressed that Sy’s son bullied their child by way of drowning and repeated it several times despite efforts, reminders and appeals made by the Vargases to the bully's parents to tell their child to stop and manage the minor's conduct.
Making matters worse, the Vargases added that after the near-injury, two of the bully's friends laughed at their son while he was on the ground, causing the child severe fear and emotional distress.
One time, the couple said the bully hit their son in a somewhat obscene sexual fashion but when they called the attention of the mother, referring to Juvelle, she simply retorted, “He's just dancing!”
Thus, the Vargases are right to insist that they did not rely on mere speculation, having presented clear, categorical, and positive testimonies from multiple independent eyewitnesses who personally saw how their seven-year-old son was clearly bullied and abused.
According to the Vargases, they even submitted an official psychiatric evaluation report from St. Luke’s Medical Center diagnosing their child with adjustment disorder, proving the severe trauma, anxiety and deep fear he is carrying.
Another puzzling aspect about this is, why did the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila apply a very much different premise — Republic Act 10627, or the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, a law specifically designed to address bullying in schools and educational institutions — when the alleged bullying act committed against their son took place outside an educational institution. Precisely why the case the Vargases filed against Sy and Bacosa was for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
So, two things: First, how can the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila claim the case was founded on mere speculation when it was witnessed not only by the victim’s parents but by other parents who were present at the time of the incident, with the complaint accompanied by an official findings from a reputed hospital?
There is a ton of difference between facts and speculations.
And second, why is the ruling citing a violation of a very much different law from that of the basis of the original complaint?
I am also a parent. And the Vargases cannot be more right when they say their case is no longer just about them as their fight has now evolved into “a fight for all the victims of bullying who suffer in silence, and for all the parents who choose to stand up and protect their children's dignity.”
Having covered Alfred Vargas when he was still in Congress some years back and having witnessed how he fought for what is right in furtherance of the interest of the people, I’m very sure he won’t back down from this fight, just like the role he portrayed in the “Encantadia” series — Aquil, the brave commander of the Lirean army.
I’m positive he will not stop in seeking justice for his child, until the very end.
