MANILA, Philippines — Actor and former public official Alfred Vargas and his wife, Yasmine Vargas, have asked the Manila Prosecutors’ Office on Wednesday to reconsider its dismissal of their child abuse complaint against businessman Rob Sy and his partner, Juvelle Bacosa, arguing that prosecutors applied the wrong law and failed to consider key evidence presented in the case.
The appeal follows a resolution that dismissed the complaint filed by the Vargas couple in connection with an alleged bullying incident involving their seven-year-old child during a swimming competition at the Rizal Memorial Sports Complex on Feb. 14. The dismissal was previously reported after prosecutors found insufficient basis to pursue the complaint.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, the Vargas spouses contended that the resolution improperly relied on the definition of bullying under Republic Act No. 10627, or the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, which they said is intended specifically for incidents occurring in schools and educational institutions.
According to the couple, their complaint was not anchored on the Anti-Bullying Act but on Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, which provides broader protections for children against abuse and conditions harmful to their development.
They argued that the incident at the center of the case occurred during a sports competition and not in a school setting.
“We respectfully believe that the Resolution erred in adopting restrictive interpretation of the law and failed to fully appreciate the totality of the evidence on record,” they said in a statement.
The Vargas couple said the resolution narrowed the protection afforded by law by treating the alleged incident as a purely school-based bullying case and, in doing so, overlooked the wider safeguards available under Republic Act No. 7610.
They further claimed that prosecutors disregarded material evidence submitted to support their complaint, including eyewitness accounts, reports and psychiatric findings documenting the emotional and psychological impact on their child.
According to the appeal, the evidence showed that the incident triggered fear, emotional distress, humiliation and psychological harm. It also cited what the couple described as a failure by Sy and Bacosa to take reasonable corrective and preventive action despite warnings and repeated reminders.
Contrary to the findings in the resolution, the Vargas spouses maintained that their child “was subjected to acts of aggression, ridicule, humiliation, intimidation, and emotional maltreatment.”
“These acts resulted in clinically documented psychological distress,” they said.
The couple also rejected the resolution’s characterization of the matter as a minor disagreement between children.
“These are not trivial matters. These are precisely the kinds of acts and conditions that Republic Act No. 7610 seeks to prevent, particularly when they affect the dignity, emotional security, psychological well-being, and development of a child,” they said.
The motion stressed that the complaint was supported by multiple eyewitnesses whose statements were submitted as evidence.
“These are positive, direct, and material eyewitness accounts,” they said in their appeal.
The Vargas couple also argued that prosecutors failed to give sufficient weight to their child’s account and to the results of a psychiatric evaluation, which allegedly documented symptoms consistent with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, fear reactions, humiliation, anxiety, feelings of betrayal and clinically significant distress requiring professional intervention.
“These manifestations should not be dismissed as mere childish statements or ordinary conflict between minors,” they said.
“Rather, they demonstrate the seriousness of the harm alleged and underscore the need for responsible parental authority, supervision, and intervention,” they added.
The couple said the case extends beyond their family and raises broader concerns about child protection and parental accountability.
“This case has never been about publicity, personal conflict, or retaliation,” the Vargas couple said.
“It has always been about parents’ accountability, child protection, and ensuring that the law works for the very individuals it was designed to protect,” they added.
The Manila Prosecutors’ Office has yet to rule on the motion for reconsideration. Sy and Bacosa have not publicly responded to the latest filing as of press time.
