|
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Fr. Jing cleared of sex rap: ‘money hunt’
By Karlon N. Rama
CEBU -- The complaint for acts of lasciviousness against former Basilica del Sto. Niño rector Fr. Apolinario "Jing" Mejorada was thrown out by the prosecutor's office.
The Office of the Cebu City Prosecutor, in a resolution dated June 9, 2003, decided to dismiss the case, pointing out that the complainant was out for "extortion."
Upon review, City Prosecutor Jose Pedrosa reversed the findings of Associate Prosecuting Attorney Rogelio del Prado, who originally recommended that the priest be charged with allegedly sexually abusing former altar boy Michal Gatchalian.
Pedrosa instead upheld the comments submitted by the office's reviewing prosecutor Nicolas Sellon, who described the complainant as having gone "money hunting" in running after Mejorada.
"It must be emphasized that the law should not be used as a tool to unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of another. Finally, he who comes to court must come with clean hands," Sellon, himself a former seminarian, said in his comment that focused on "after the fact" details or matters that happened after the alleged incident.
Cebu Archdiocesan media liaison officer Msgr. Achilles Dakay said he is happy with the decision as it finally clears the doubts of the clergy and lay on the allegations.
Sex scandal
In a separate interview, lawyer Paulino Labrado, who is representing Gatchalian, declined to comment on the matter as he has yet to meet with other lawyers of the Children's Legal Bureau, which is assisting the former altar boy.
The dismissal of the complaint came a day after the Catholic Church was again rocked by a sex scandal, this time involving Novaliches Bishop Teodoro Bacani.
In his complaint, dated Jan. 14, 2003, Gatchalian, now 21 years old, accused Mejorada of child abuse and acts of lasciviousness, saying the priest fondled him and co-altar boy Jun Ryan Duhaylungsod in January 1998. He was 17 at that time.
Gatchalian said he reported the incident to the officials of the Order of St. Augustine, to which Mejorada belongs, but no action was made against the priest.
Instead, the basilica's priests ordered him dismissed as an alter boy and banned from serving during masses.
He then wrote the priest and asked for a public apology. Gatchalian said he filed the complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor because the public apology was never given.
Apology
But Pedrosa said Sellon's comment clearly shows that Gatchalian "abused the law" when he filed the complaint.
He explained that the letter Gatchalian claimed to have sent the priest was not to ask for an apology but was a demand letter for P10 million, otherwise he will file a criminal complaint.
Based on the records, this was also not the first time he approached the priest for money.
The letter in December 1999 came after the priest, in October 1998 and after having been confronted, gave the boy P80,000 and apologized to him in front of lawyer Paul Yabao and other members of the basilica's community.
"The letter only had one purpose, and that was to obtain more money. In fact, the letter did result in another payment, this time for P120,000, which the boy received," Pedrosa said.
In his comment, Sellon said that while Gatchalian claimed that his request for a public apology from the priest was the sole motivation for his filing of the complaint, the demand letter reveals otherwise.
"There is no demand at all for a public apology in the aforequoted letter. Had not this letter been written by a lawyer in behalf of a client, this would have been viewed as pure and simple extortion and may have been punishable under our Revised Penal Code," Sellon said.
Probable cause
"(The) letter completely belies complainant's pretentious claim that what he merely wanted from the respondent was a public apology. As the letter would speak for itself, money is evidently the only consideration," Sellon said.
The fact that Gatchalian filed the complaint five years after the incident also shows what his motive really is.
Del Prado's original findings stated there was probable cause to file a criminal case against the priest who, in an affidavit, even admitted to touching the complainant's thighs.
The only thing the priest denied was fondling the penis of the former altar boy, as Gatchalian rebuked him when he started to go higher than the thighs, and the date of the incident, which he placed on Jan. 14, 1999, not 1998.
"Lascivious conduct means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether or the same or opposite sex, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person," del Prado said.
In an interview, Pedrosa defended his reversal by saying prosecutors, aside from the determination of probable cause, also have the duty to protect the court and the law from abuses because they are "officers of the court."
He did not deny the validity of del Prado's findings, though. Sun.Star Cebu
(June 10, 2003 issue)
Want Sun.Star news on your mobile phone? Click here.
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
 |
| click
to comment on this article or discuss it with other readers |
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
Terror suspect admits role in Manila blasts