MOCHA USON and ANDREW OLIVAR FOR BETTER or WORSE

PCOO Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson and blogger Andrew “Drew” Olivar were accused before the Ombudsman for making fun of sign language. The said case was the offshoot of that Sept. 15 video clip of Olivar wherein he mimics sign language. Uson can be heard laughing while filming Olivar.

The complaint stated that Uson and Olivar violated Republic Act (RA) 9442, known as the “Magna Carta for Disabled Persons. RA 9442 states “no individual, group, or community shall execute any acts of ridicule against persons with additional needs in any time and place which could intimidate or result in loss of self-esteem of the latter.”

Uson and Olivar, according to the complaint, specifically violated section 39 of the said law: “Section 39 of Chapter One defines public ridicule as an act of making fun or contemptuous imitating or making a mockery of persons with additional needs whether in writing, or in words, or in action due to impairment/s.”

The elements of the crime are:

1. There must be an act whether in writing, or in words, or in action;

2. That the act or writing must be for the purpose of making fun or contemptuous imitating or making mockery; and

3. That the act or writing which was making fun or contemptuous imitating or making mockery was directed to persons with disability.

All the above elements must concur or be present for the accused person to be convicted.

In criminal cases, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that "Of great weight in Our criminal justice system is the principle that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent (dolo), without which it cannot exist. ACTUS NON FACIT REAM, NISI MENS SET REA or the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so.

In this instant case, the 3rd element is absent because the mimicking of the sign language was without malice and criminal intent. There was no specific person or persons that were clearly the object or being subjected, or better still, being targeted. Nobody or not just anybody can claim anytime or make reference all the time that they were the ones being directed or he or they were the ones being referred to or targeted by the action of respondent Olivar. Therefore, for Olivar and Uson to be guilty as charged it must be such that the mimicking of Olivar was beyond reasonable doubt that the same was in fact done with physical, mental and spiritual intention and purpose to ridicule a particular person or persons or group which in this case are the people with disability.

In the determination whether or not a person is guilty does not depend on what the person supposedly aggrieved would want to project and assert to the court because, in this way, the court will be dealing with his imagination which is as vast as the ocean. The court must base his findings on the actual facts of the case. In this connection, Social Justice — or any justice for that matter — is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law."