Actor and former congressman Alfred Vargas and his wife Yasmine Vargas have filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Manila Prosecutors’ Office, seeking to overturn a Resolution that dismissed their criminal complaint against actot Rob Sy and his partner, Juvelle Bacosa.
Screengrab of Alfred and Yasmine Vargas courtesy of Karen Davila’s Youtube channel | Screengrab of Juvelle Bacosa and Rob Sy courtesy of Ogie Diaz’s Youtube channel
According to the Vargas couple, the Resolution allegedly relied on the definition of bullying under Republic Act No. 10627, or the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, which they claim is a law specifically intended to address bullying in schools and educational institutions.
The Vargas spouses contend that their complaint was not filed under the Anti-Bullying Act.
Instead, they state that their complaint sought the prosecution of Sy and Bacosa under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, which provides protections for children against abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions allegedly harmful to their development.
According to the Motion for Reconsideration, the alleged incident referenced in the complaint took place during a swimming competition at the Rizal Memorial Sports Complex on February 14, 2026, and not in a school setting.
“We respectfully believe that the Resolution erred in adopting restrictive interpretation of the law and failed to fully appreciate the totality of the evidence on record,” the Vargas couple said.
In their appeal, the Vargas spouses argue that the Resolution allegedly narrowed the scope of legal protection by treating the matter as a school-based bullying incident.
According to the Motion, this approach allegedly failed to consider the broader protections available under Republic Act No. 7610.
The Vargas couple further claims that the Resolution did not adequately consider evidence they submitted, including eyewitness accounts, reports, and psychiatric findings that they say documented the emotional and psychological effects allegedly experienced by their child.
According to the Vargas spouses, the evidence they presented indicated that the alleged bullying incident resulted in fear, emotional distress, humiliation, and psychological harm.
They also claim that Sy and Bacosa allegedly failed to take reasonable corrective or preventive action despite receiving warnings and repeated reminders.
Contrary to the findings stated in the Resolution, the Vargas couple alleges that their child “was subjected to acts of aggression, ridicule, humiliation, intimidation, and emotional maltreatment.”
“These acts resulted in clinically documented psychological distress,” they said.
The Vargas couple also disputes the Resolution’s characterization of the matter as a minor disagreement or ordinary conflict between children.
“These are not trivial matters,” they said.
“These are precisely the kinds of acts and conditions that Republic Act No. 7610 seeks to prevent, particularly when they affect the dignity, emotional security, psychological well-being, and development of a child.”
The Motion further states that the complaint was supported not only by the parents’ statements but also by accounts from multiple witnesses, which were submitted as part of the complaint.
“These are positive, direct, and material eyewitness accounts,” they said in their appeal.
The Vargas spouses also contend that insufficient weight was given to their child’s own account of the events and to the results of a psychiatric evaluation submitted as evidence.
According to the appeal, the evaluation allegedly documented emotional and psychological distress, including symptoms said to be consistent with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, as well as fear reactions, humiliation, anxiety, feelings of betrayal, and other forms of clinically significant distress that reportedly required professional intervention.
“These manifestations should not be dismissed as mere childish statements or ordinary conflict between minors,” they said.
“Rather, they demonstrate the seriousness of the harm alleged and underscore the need for responsible parental authority, supervision, and intervention,” they added.
“This case has never been about publicity, personal conflict, or retaliation,” the Vargas couple said.
“It has always been about parents’ accountability, child protection, and ensuring that the law works for the very individuals it was designed to protect,” they added.
In a separate statement, Alfred Vargas said:
“We will always respect and believe in the legal process. Our faith in the justice system makes us hope that the truth can never be manipulated and covered up. Lalabas at lalabas din ang katotohanan.”
“Umaasa kami na mabibigyang kaming mag-asawa ng pagkakataon na ipaglaban ang karapatan ng aming anak. He has been a victim of continuous bullying,” he said.
“Ito ay para rin sa lahat ng mga batang biniktima, sinaktan at inabuso ng mga bully. Sana ay mabigyan sila ng tinig at ng pagkakataon na ibangon ang kanilang pagkatao at ipaglaban ang kanilang mga karaparatan sa ating hukuman,” he added.
As of this writing, the Motion for Reconsideration remains pending before the Manila Prosecutors’ Office. The allegations and claims contained in the Motion have yet to be finally resolved by the appropriate authorities.
Meanwhile, Sy and Bacosa have publicly addressed the controversy and broken their silence through a detailed interview with Ogie Diaz on his YouTube channel, where they discussed their side of the dispute and responded to issues raised in connection with the case.
For context, watch these interviews:
