THE COUNTRY’S supernatural folklore is incredibly diverse and varies from region to region, including the belief on kulam or “witchcraft.”
In Pinoy movie landscape, kulam has been at the core of the horror movie genre and depicted in numerous format that it can, at some point, be hailed as one of the clichés of Filipino films.
Kulam is black magic that specifically targets people who have committed a wrong. The mangkukulam either harms an effigy to cause corresponding harm to the victim, or physically “sends” objects into the victim’s body. The methods are activated by chants, spells, or symbols.
In an article, former UP Diliman Chancellor Michael Tan noted that in medical dimensions, kulam is a label attached to conditions that seem unexplainable, accompanied by guilt feelings about having done something wrong. The illness is then believed to be sent by an enemy who has hired a sorcerer. Sometimes too, the patient believes he or she has not done anything wrong and that the sorcery is sent by someone envious of his or her success or wealth.
Kulam also became the centerpiece of some interesting decisions by the Supreme Court.
In the 1966 case of People v. Sario (GR L-20754-20759), the Supreme Court explained that a “mangkukulam” is a witch, or one who practices witchcraft as the term is derived from the Filipino word “kulam” which means “witchcraft, sorcery” while “mang” is “a prefix used to express oneself in or assumption of.”
The English term “witch” means one who practices the black art, or magic; one regarded as possessing supernatural or magical power by compact with an evil spirit, especially with the devil; a sorcerer or sorceress.
“Witchcraft” is the practice or art of witches; the practice of black magic; sorcery; enchantments; intercourse with evil spirits; also an instance of such practice.
“Sorcery” is the use of power gained from the assistance or control of evil spirits, especially for divining; divination by black magic; necromancy witchcraft.
In the Sario case, information charging the crime of oral defamation were filed against four accused for allegedly having called complainant a “mangkukulam.”
The accused also attributed to her the death through witchcraft of three persons. They added that complainant inherited her power of witchcraft from her father and that she had probably bequeathed it to her child.
According to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, is libelous.
The issue was whether the statements attributed to the accused may be considered libelous imputations.
The Supreme Court stressed that the word “mangkukulam” is undoubtedly an epithet of “opprobrium.”
To say that complainant is a witch and sorceress, the Supreme Court said, is to impute to her a vice, condition or status that is dishonorable and contemptible since it accuses her of having employed the black art; of possessing supernatural power by reason of a covenant with evil spirits; and of having trafficked with the devil.
According to the lower court, to call another a “mangkukulam” or “witch” is not a malicious imputation because nobody believes anymore in witches and witchcraft in this modern age.
The Supreme Court, however, pointed out that the truths of the statements are open to question since the very declarations made by the accused attest to the contrary.
In any event, the imputed vice or defect need not be real or existing in order that the imputation may be punishable; and imaginary vice or defect is sufficient.
While belief in the existence of witches may have become passé, the terms “mangkukulam” and “witch” have accepted meanings from which it is clear that they are terms of derision, and for one to be so labeled is to be an object of contempt, even of odium.
In People vs Roberto Oliquino (GR 94703 May 31, 1993), the Supreme Court ruled that the delay in filing the complaint three months after the incident occurred does not automatically render the victim’s testimony as incredible.
Her fear caused by the threat made by accused that he would kill her and her parents by putting a curse or kulam upon them, if she would tell anyone that he raped her, prevented her from immediately reporting the incident to her family and the authorities.
While some individuals who consider the same as unbelievable or a farce may shrug off a threat of a curse or kulam, for a young and unsophisticated lass like Eden, it is not inconceivable that she took such threat seriously.
***
“Peyups” is the moniker of University of the Philippines. Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0917-5025808 or 0908-8665786./PN
