I KNEW there was something suspect from the very beginning the issue hit the front page of this paper.
Imagine, a priest--and no ordinary priest at that since aside from being parish priest of the Nativity of Mary Parish in Canduman, Mandaue City, he is also an episcopal vicar of the Archdiocese of Cebu’s Near North District parishes and a member of the Board of Consultors, which advises the bishop on matters pertaining to the archdiocese--allegedly hit a 15-year-old girl with a cardboard and then kicked her because she failed to feed his pet dog on time.
I’m not saying that Fr. Decoroso Olmilla didn’t do all the things that he had been accused of—the girl’s mother also said that she had been on the receiving end of his alleged physical abuses, especially when he didn’t like the food she cooked—but the circumstances surrounding his arrest earlier this week left my eyebrows firmly glued to the ceiling.
A “concerned” citizen had called the Canduman Police Station to report the priest’s alleged assault that prompted police to take him into custody.
So it wasn’t like Olmilla was caught in flagrante. Come to think of it, the police really had no basis to barge into the church and then haul his ass off to jail. Not based on hearsay. But they did.
As for the alleged victim, where was the evidence that the priest assaulted her? Again, I am not saying Olmilla didn’t hit her with a cardboard and then kick her, he might have as a form of rebuke since the girl did do something wrong, and if you have a pet then you’d understand how he felt when his dog missed his din-din. After all, Olmilla comes from a generation that considers corporal punishment a norm.
But I had a bad feeling about the whole thing when I learned that the alleged victim had “special needs.”
Oh, to those who grew up with me, what the authorities basically meant but were just too afraid to say it out loud was that the girl was mentally retarded. And yet, having learned that, the police and the staff of Mandaue City’s Social Welfare Office still took her word for it and charged the priest with child abuse.
This, even though the alleged victim’s mother and the girl reportedly filed an affidavit of desistance, which actually would explain why the mother didn’t bring her daughter to the hospital to undergo psychological examination, which she was told to do, because she wanted for them to go back home.
Apparently, the whole thing might have been too embarrassing for her. And let’s face it, after the ordeal that Olmilla went through, I doubt she’d be cooking for him in the near future. Unless, of course, the priest decides to let bygones be bygones.
As to the “concerned” citizen who reported the alleged incident to authorities, here are the repercussions of your action.
The mother ended up losing custody of her daughter. As for the girl, she would be turned over to an institution for children with special needs, where, I’m sure, she wouldn’t be subjected to any abuses.
So why do I have a feeling the “concerned” citizen, who, by the way, conveniently hides behind the veil of anonymity, had an axe to grind against the priest? That it was personal.
This whole thing reminded me of John 8:7 when Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone...”