The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) has asked the city prosecutor’s office to reconsider its resolution absolving controversial priest Benedicto Ejares from charges of Acts of Lasciviousness.
In its Motion for Reconsideration, DSWD also asked that Prosecutor Alexander Acosta and Reviewing Prosecutor Fernando Gubalane, the ones who penned the resolution in Ejares’ favor, inhibit from resolving the Motion for Reconsideration.
Seven high school students accused Ejares of harassment when the priest, during confession in a Life in the Spirit Seminar, allegedly placed his arms around the students’ shoulders and “toyed” with the straps of their bra.
DSWD argued that the effect of Ejares’ acts resulted in their reactions of shock and “tearful avoidance” of the priest. These acts, DSWD said, cannot just be taken lightly as a misunderstanding of the priest’s intentions, as they have caused more serious and lasting psychological and emotional trauma on the part of the students.
“The acts complained of, when taken in the context of the elements of the crime and definitions of the offense under the statute in question, would necessarily and conclusively be sufficient to establish probable cause to indict the respondent for violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of R.A. 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Act) independent of any interpretation of the acts complained of under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code,” the DSWD contended.
“This case is not about sexual abuse or lascivious conduct on the part of the respondent. Rather, it is about the psychological, emotional and moral effect the acts of the respondent produced in the minds of his victims.
“There is no debate about the nature of the office of the priesthood. But this office is not infallible and being a creature of man, must therefore stand scrutiny under the laws of mankind. The exercise of the duties of this office, whether we like it or not, has a profound effect on the spiritual, emotional and psychological well-being of its followers who are themselves citizens of the state,” DSWD further said.
Gubalane earlier explained their findings were based purely on evidence submitted by the National Bureau of Investigation that included the affidavits of the seven supposed victims and their pictures.
He pointed out that there was no psychological report submitted as evidence, which is necessary as stipulated under the implementing rules in the filing of any a complaint in relation to Republic Act 7610 or the anti-child abuse law.
Section 17 of the Implementing Rules reads, “the investigation report of the department and/or of the police or other law enforcement agency on the abuse of a child, together with the results of the physical/mental examination and/or medical treatment and other relevant evidence, shall be immediately forwarded to the provincial or city prosecutor concerned for the preparation and filing of the appropriate criminal charge against the person who allegedly committed the abuse.”
In clearing Ejares from charges, the prosecutor’s office said there is insufficient ground to indict the priest for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act 7610 or the anti-child abuse law and Republic Act 7877 or the anti-sexual harassment act.
But citing a ruling of the Supreme Court, the prosecutor’s office said the “factual setting, i.e., a schoolroom in the presence of complainant’s students and within hearing distance of her co-teachers, rules out a conclusion that the accused was actuated by a lustful design or purpose or that his conduct was lewd or lascivious.”
Prosecutors further said that based on the sworn declarations of the supposed victims, it seemed that Ejares’ style of hearing a confession -- that is putting his arm around the penitent’s shoulders, touching the penitent’s arms and back, or toying with the strap of the penitent’s bra with his fingers “was just a matter of routine or habit coupled with the fact that these parts of the body being touched are not even ‘private parts’ as ordinarily understood.”
In its resolution, however, the prosecutors had said Ejares could have been charged with unjust vexation, a light offense punishable by 30 days imprisonment and/or a fine of P5 to P200.
However, the crime was already considered prescribed, as the case against Ejares was filed only on April 11, 2007, approximately six months after the crime was allegedly committed on November 14, 2006. The crime of unjust vexation prescribes after two months. — (/NLQ)