Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Nalzaro: Not Christ's alter ego? By Bobby Nalzaro Saksi
I WAS amazed at the argument of the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office when it dismissed the acts of lasciviousness cases filed against Fr. Benedicto “Ben” Ejares late last year.
The prosecutors claimed they were not dealing with an ordinary human being but with someone who is considered an alter ego of Jesus Christ. Alter ego means the other one, a second self, a second personality or persona within a person.
The dismissal triggered public and media criticism. The complainants---seven female students of the Abellana National School represented by social welfare and City Hall lawyers---filed a motion for reconsideration.
The lawyers argued that “the crux of the complaint was not the criminal intent on the part of the priest but the psychological damage the act has inflicted” on the children. The case was a simple allegation of acts of lasciviousness but filed in relation to Republic Act 7610 or the Special Protection for Children Act.
The other day, city prosecutors resolved the motion for reconsideration by recommending the filing of one count of child abuse against Ejares.
Why the sudden change? Did the prosecutors succumb to public criticism of their earlier ruling? Was the complainants' lawyer able to offer new arguments that prodded the prosecutors to change tack? Why did they abandon the “priest is an alter ego of Christ” argument?
City Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon said there is only basis to file one criminal case for child abuse against the priest even if there are seven complainants. “There is only one criminal impulse as the respondent committed these acts in unbroken succession and similar fashion with each act being closely connected to each other,” the resolution said.
Come on, Prosecutor Sellon. If a priest is an “alter ego of Jesus Christ” and therefore cannot commit lascivious acts, he cannot also commit child abuse, a heavier offense.
Still, this is a welcome development. At least Fr. Ejares has been given a chance to air his side and allowed to avail of due process of law.
Ejares avoided the public since the controversy cropped up middle of last year. His superiors at the Cebu Archdiocese defended him and even refused to impose disciplinary action against him.
Since the Church is seeking the truth in the national broadband network deal, can people also demand for the truth in the case of Fr. Ejares?
