IN a viral video now circulating online—already reported to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)—a disturbing incident was captured showing a person with disability (PWD), reportedly an individual with autism, being physically assaulted by several bus passengers.
Initial investigation reveals that the PWD allegedly bit the shoulder of another passenger during the ride.
However, as the video shows, the response was not one of restraint or assistance, but rather, a collective mauling of the PWD, who was seen helpless, crying, and at one point, possibly subjected to a taser or another electrical device.
We, Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection, strongly condemns this inhumane and contemptible act.
We call for the immediate investigation and accountability of all individuals involved—particularly the bus driver, conductor, operator, and the passengers who took part in the assault. All of them may be held civilly and/or criminally liable, as explained below:
1. Criminal Liability of the Offending Passengers
Passengers who physically attacked the PWD may be held criminally liable for physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. The specific charges will depend on the degree of injury sustained by the victim. While the aggressors may attempt to invoke self-defense or defense of a third party, such justifications are untenable in this case.
Under the law, one of the essential elements of self-defense is that the means employed must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel an actual or imminent aggression. Furthermore, force may only be used to stop ongoing aggression. Here, assuming the PWD did bite a fellow passenger, the aggression had already ceased. The video clearly shows the PWD sitting down, crying, and visibly confused—yet the attack occurred after this point.
Therefore, there was no longer any aggression to repel, and the repeated assault—including the use of a taser and overwhelming force by multiple individuals—was clearly excessive. Such conduct could even rise to the level of frustrated murder, particularly given the abuse of superior strength and the vulnerability of the victim.
2. Civil and Possible Criminal Liability of the Driver and Conductor
As personnel of a common carrier, the bus driver and conductor are legally obligated to ensure the safety of passengers with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, as required under Article 1755 of the Civil Code. Additionally, Article 1763 provides that common carriers are responsible for injuries inflicted by other passengers if such acts could have been prevented through the exercise of due diligence.
In this case, the initial incident—the alleged biting—occurred at Main Avenue Station, yet the driver and conductor allowed the PWD to remain onboard without intervention or referral to authorities. The mauling occurred much later, near Buendia Station, suggesting that the bus personnel failed to act on the initial incident, thereby exposing the PWD to further danger.
Furthermore, the video shows no effort on the part of the conductor to physically restrain or even verbally intervene in the mauling, indicating a disturbing lack of training and preparedness to handle such situations. This amounts to gross negligence, particularly egregious in light of the PWD’s condition and the prolonged exposure to harm.
Given their legal duties and the nature of their operations, the bus company and its employees are expected to act prudently and responsibly, especially in handling vulnerable passengers and volatile situations onboard.
The LCSP urges the LTO, LTFRB, and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to conduct a full and impartial investigation into the incident. Should the findings confirm the facts as initially reported, all responsible parties—both passengers and bus personnel—must be held accountable. This includes not only civil and criminal liability, but also administrative sanctions where applicable.
Protecting the rights and welfare of commuters, especially the vulnerable, is a matter of public duty. We demand justice for the victim and institutional reforms to prevent such incidents from happening again.
