EN
BANC
|
Sherlita O.
Tan, Complainant, - versus
- JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 27, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - x Johanna M.
VillaFranca, Complainant, - versus
- JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 27, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - x ANONYMOUS LETTER-WRITERS, Complainant, - versus
- JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 27, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No.
RTJ-06-1982
(Formerly A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC)
A.M. No.
RTJ-06-1983 (Formerly A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC)
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA,
TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
REYES,
and LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ. Promulgated: December
14, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Per Curiam:
These consolidated-complaints filed
against Executive Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot (Judge Pacuribot) of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of
1.
Affidavit-Complaint[1]
dated 4 December 2005 filed by Sherlita
O. Tan (Ms. Tan), Court Stenographer of
RTC, Branch 27, Gingoog City, and
affidavit-complaint[2]
dated 20 December 2005 filed by Johanna M. Villafranca (Ms. Villafranca), Clerk
II, Gingoog City Parole and Probation Office, charging Judge Pacuribot with sexual harassment;
2.
Letter[3]
dated 4 April 2005 from “concerned citizens,” asking for the relief of Judge
Pacuribot on the grounds that he has been terrorizing and harassing most of the
employees, both casual and contractual, of the Hall of Justice of Gingoog City;
and
3. An undated letter[4]
from “concerned citizens” also asking the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
to investigate the illicit relationship of Judge Pacuribot and a certain Sheryl
Gamulo. They informed the OCA that
Sheryl Gamulo bore two acknowledged children of Judge Pacuribot, the eldest of
whom named Rexell Pacuribot was born on 15 October 2004, and the second child
was born on 2 September 2005, both at Maternity Hospital, Cagayan de Oro City.
On
1.
The complaint of Ms. Sherlita Tan be referred to the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation of the
2.
the complaint of Ms. Johanna M. Villafrancia be docketed as a
regular administrative matter
3.
Judge Pacuribot be required to comment on the complaint of
Ms. Villafranca; and
4.
Judge Pacurribot be suspended immediately until further
orders from this Court.[6]
On
With respect to all the other
recommendations of the OCA, finding them to be in accord with existing laws,
the same are hereby APPROVED. In particular, Judge Rexel Pacuribot is
immediately SUSPENDED until further notice from this Court. He is likewise
DIRECTED to comment on the complaints of Mesdames Tan and Villafranca within
ten days. The complaint, however, of Ms. Sherlita Tan should be docketed as a
regular administrative matter to be consolidated with that of Ms. Johanna M.
Villafranca’s for proper disposition in line with the foregoing discussions.[7]
On
On
Tan’s story
Ms.
Tan’s nightmare as an underling of respondent judge started on
x x x x
Coming out into the lobby of the
hotel, Ms. Tan saw respondent judge [Judge Pacuribot] inside his car,
alone. When she came near, he opened the
car door for her and she took her seat.
Then, angrily he asked: “What took you so long?” She kept mum.
She saw in between their seats his clutch bag with his short
firearm. That sight frightened her
although she was consoled by the thought that she would soon get rid of him at
the bus terminal. Pryce Plaza Hotel to
the bus terminal would be about twenty (20) minutes ride, traffic considered.
Unfortunately, [Judge Pacuribot] had
other ideas. Along the way to the bus
terminal, he drove in to what looked like a compound. She unexpectedly saw that his car entered a
small garage, and when it stopped, the roll down shutter quickly locked up from
behind. She was brought not to the bus
terminal but to a motel whose name she came to recognize only after the
incident as the City Lodge Motel in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City. She felt deceived. Knowing the implications, she protested: “Why did you bring me here, sir? Didn’t I
tell you that I will just take a taxicab to the Agora Terminal?” He rudely told her: “Shut up!
As if you are still a virgin!” Respondent judge [Judge Pacuribot] then
directed her to get down the car.
Timorously, she obeyed. As soon
as she went down his car, she looked for a possible exit and found none. All she saw was a door which opened. He ushered her into the room, walking closely
from behind her. He locked the door.
Ms. Tan, scared and confused, walked
to the comfort room, where she pretended to relieve herself. There, she again looked for a possible
exit. Again, she found none. After a short while, she heard [Judge
Pacuribot] asking: “What are you doing there?
What’s taking you so long?”
Remembering, that he has a gun, she came out of the comfort room. To her dismay, she found him nude in bed and
fear overcame her more.
[Judge Pacuribot] ordered Ms. Tan to
undress. Her reluctance made her move
slowly. He let out more impatience
asking: “What’s taking you so long to undress?
Excite me!” She refused at first,
but he became furious. At that moment
too, she saw his gun on what seemed to her was headboard of the bed. Frightened, she undressed, retaining her bra and
panty. He asked her to kiss him and she
obeyed half-heartedly. While she was
kissing his neck, he expressed dissatisfaction by asking: “You don’t know how
to kiss! How do you do it with
Ramon? Get into sex right away without
any preliminaries?” Ramon is her
husband. She was quiet.
[Judge Pacuribot] ordered her to lie
down on the bed. She yielded out of
fear. He pulled her bra and panty,
kissed her neck and lips, and sucked her tongue and breasts. Minutes after, he inserted his penis to her vagina. While he did a push and pull motion, she was
complaining: “You are so rude, Sir! We work in the same office yet you disgrace
me!” He told her angrily: “Shut up! Concentrate! See! It’s softening....” She recalled that he tried several times to stiffen
his penis but he seemingly has some erection problem. At his attempt for coitus, she felt the
penetration was just slight. Later, he
was getting exhausted and was breathing hard.
He would rest each time he failed to have full enjoyment. While he rested, she would ask him to let her
go, but angrily he refused. Instead, he
would forcibly ride on top of her again and make more attempts at coitus until
he finally gave up. He said to her: “It
won’t stiffen because I have been forbidden to eat many kinds of food such as
meat which gives energy.”
After a while, Ms. Tan saw [Judge
Pacuribot] got up from bed, took his gun, and peeped through the window of the
motel. This time, she once again
implored him, “Sir, I’ll just take a taxi to Agora.” He answered:
“I’ll bring you there.” At the
time, she was so confused that she cannot recall whether he made payment in the
motel. She could not concentrate
anymore.
The two left the motel in his
car. However, instead of conducting her
to the bus terminal, again [Judge Pacuribot] brought Ms. Tan to another place .
. . this time to Discovery Hotel adjacent to
At around
Q: What did he do, if any?
A: He ordered me again saying: “Make Love
to me!”
Q: What was your reaction, if any?
A: I refused.
Q: What was his reaction, if any?
A: He angrily shouted at me: “My goodness! Why are you so slow? As if you are a virgin!”
Q: What did you feel, if any?
A: I was terrified of him.
Q: What did you do, if any?
A: I was forced to go near him, kissed his
neck, but [I] stopped.
Q: Why did you stop?
A: I was disgusted with what I was doing
and with him.
Q: What was his reaction, if any?
A: He angrily told me: “You don’t know how to make love! How do you do it with Ramon? You simply have sex without foreplay? Kayati ba sab?”
Q: What was your reaction, if any?
A: I felt helpless and kept quiet.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: He ordered me saying: “Suck it!”
Q: What did he want you to suck on him?
A: His penis.
Q: What did you do, if any?
A: I refused.
Q: What was his reaction, if any?
A: He got angry, pulled my hair and pushed
my face to his penis saying: “suck it! Let it in till deep your throat! Let my
penis reach your throat!”
Q: What did you do, if any?
A: I gasped for breath so that when I
opened my mouth, his penis entered my mouth.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: He tightened his hold on me so I was
forced to suck his penis afraid that he might break my neck.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: His penis reached my throat and I felt
nauseated so I ran to the bathroom and vomited.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: I stayed in the bathroom for a while
because I was not feeling well.
Q: What was his reaction, if any?
A: He angrily ordered me to go to him and
lie beside him and I obeyed.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: He rode on top of me again and tried to
insert his penis into my vagina.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: His penis could hardly stiffen.
Q: What was his reaction, if any?
A: He got angry saying: “It can’t enter! Your vagina’s too small.
Q: What did he do next, if any?
A: He spread my two (2) legs wide apart
and tried to insert his penis but it did not stiffen.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: He pulled my head towards him by
pulling my hair.
Q: What was your reaction, if any?
A: I told him: “Don’t pull my hair, sir!
It’s very painful! What a sadist you are!”
Q: What was his reaction, if any?
A: He just kissed my lips, neck, sucked my
nipple and mashed my breast by saying: “This is the breast of a lustful woman”
while continuing to suck my neck and breast.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: He said: “I’m going to plant lots of
kiss marks here to let the people know that you passed through my hands.”
Q: What was he referring to as “here”?
A: My neck.
Q: What was your reaction, if any?
A: I cried.
Q: What happened after that, if any?
A: He rested while I went crying to the
bathroom, washed my body then dressed up.
Ms.
Tan again pleaded for [Judge Pacuribot] to let her go. This time, [Judge Pacuribot] assented, but he
offered to bring her to the bus terminal. Traumatized, she refused the
offer. She told him that she will just
take a taxi and will have breakfast at the Ororama. Still he insisted to shuttle her there. Thus,
at about past
Ms. Tan did not report to the office
the next working day, that was
Ms. Tan told no one of her traumatic
experience and carried on as if nothing happened. But from then on, [Judge Pacuribot’s]
advances on her went on unabated even in the office. Whenever she would go inside his chamber, at
times, he would grab her blouse, mash her breast, and kiss her neck saying that
she smells so sweet. At times, he would
touch the crotch of her pants or pull the string of her panty. On
The situation got worse for Ms. Tan
when respondent judge [ Judge Pacuribot] indicated his interest in renting a
room in her house which she used as her home office. Ms. Tan’s house is near the Police Station
and the courthouse. Initially, she
candidly told him that the said room is not for rent. She even refused him in the presence of her
officemates who cannot comprehend why she should not allow him to rent the room
considering that it would be an additional income for her. At that time, they were unaware what she was
going through.
Ms. Tan brought her commercial
calendar to their office. It has her
picture. Having seen it, [Judge Pacuribot],
in the presence of Ms. Tan, instructed Placido Abellana, the court aide, to
mount her calendar at the door of his chamber, saying: “Whoever removes the calendar would take a
scolding from me. Don’t remove Shirley’s
calendar. I like that hot babes.” Then, pointing to her picture, he added: “That’s my idol, the hot babes Kikay!” As he was still trying to persuade her then
to let him rent a room in her house, he said in jest to Placido Abellana: “If I
rent the room, I will call Shirly… she will massage me and step on my back and
I will feel good because Shirley is sexy.”
With the pressure on her to rent him
a room being kept, Ms. Tan eventually yielded, but she erected a wall between
his rented room and her house, and provided for him a separate ingress and
egress. Nonetheless, when her husband is
not around, she would find him knocking on her window and ordering her to go to
his room.
Ms. Tan claims that if [Judge
Pacuribot] could not have his way with her because she resists, he would scold
her in his chamber and would also humiliate her in the presence of her
officemates. She would also receive
threats from him as regards her performance rating. In fact, her “Very Satisfactory” rating in
the previous years of her service went down to “Satisfactory” for the period of
January to June 2005, the first and only time that she was given such a rating.
Because of the very oppressive ways
of [Judge Pacuribot], Ms. Tan eventually suffered from what doctors call
“chronic fatigue syndrome” and was hospitalized in December 2005. Dr. Virgilio Lim of Lipunan Hospital of
Gingoog City treated her. Dr. Lim
testified that emotional stresses of a patient could lead to chronic fatigue
syndrome.
Ms. Tan’s helplessness against the
sexual abuses and advances of her judge was gnawing on her. She found it revolting. She finally mustered enough courage to come
out in the open to free herself. She
executed an Affidavit Complaint sworn before a woman Clerk of Court of Cagayan
de Oro City on
Villafranca’s Story
Ms.
Villafranca first met respondent judge [Judge Pacuribot] sometime in November
2004 at the lobby near the Probation Office at the Hall of Justice of
On
In avoidance, Ms. Villafranca
requested for a transfer to Probation Office, Cagayan de Oro City. This was in February 2005. She was asked to make a written request which
she failed to file due to heavy work load.
At that time, the Regional Office of the Probation Office for Region X
was about to hold a Timestral Conference.
Venue of the Conference was
Although calls of [Judge Pacuribot’s]
were unwanted, but Ms. Villafranca wanted to be polite to him for two (2)
reasons: his status as a judge and his
reputation, in the Hall of Justice, as “terror” which caused most people to
fear him. So, she took his calls politely,
gave him respect, and when she had to turn down his call, she had to do it
courteously like: “Ok, sir, I still have work to do, I cannot talk long.”
In the last week of February 2005,
Ms. Villafranca got a call from [Judge Pacuribot] who was fuming mad because
she refused his dinner invitations.
Scared, she finally relented. It
was scheduled on
A few minutes past
Noticing that [Judge Pacuribot] was
driving towards the opposite direction of The Mansion, she told him they are
driving the wrong way. But she was told
that they are going to
After about an hour, Ms. Villafranca
noticed that [Judge Pacuribot] turned right from the national highway, and a
little farther, he honked his horn, entered a garage which then immediately
closed as soon as his car entered. It
was late for her to realize that he brought her to a motel in
Atty. Kho:
Q: You said you were brought to
A: No, I don’t.
Q: Could you remember the size of the room
that you were in on that day which you claim on
A: I’m sorry, Attorney, everything seems
to be so blurred during that time. All I
could really remember was asking him to take me home because it was not agreed
that I go with him in a motel but in a restaurant at Mansion by the sea at
Q: So you don’t remember really anything
else?
A: I remember what happened to me.
Q: Why, what happened to you?
A: When he forced himself to me.
Q: When you say he forced himself to you,
what do you mean?
A: When he was on top of me and he was
kissing me. God, I can feel and I can
remember how heavily he was breathing in my face and he was kissing me all over
and he was trying to position himself inside of me. Those are what I can remember and I kept on
telling him: “No! I want to go home to
my children.” I wanted to go home
because my family will be looking for me. What? Did he listen to me? No, he
kept on telling me I am emancipated.
Nobody will look for me.
Q: What were you wearing at that time on
February 22?
A: I was wearing pants and a blouse.
Q: Were you undressed at that time?
A: I am sorry?
Q: Were you undressed?
A: Undressed? He undressed me.
Q: He undressed you?
A: Yes.
Q: Nothing left?
(No reply).
Ms.
Villafranca felt that her legs were being parted as [Judge Pacuribot] tried to
insert his penis into her vagina, but she could sense he had difficulty with
erection. She felt penetration was
slight. She recalled that he tried
penetration more than three times, but was unsuccessful. She felt his heavy breathing while he planted
vile kisses on her neck and chest. Her
repeated pleas for mercy had not done her any good. Not long after, he rolled over with her and
she found herself on top of him. He
grabbed her hair and pushed down her face to his penis, and forced her to do
oral sex on him instead. She resisted,
but he insisted saying that it was what he wanted, otherwise she would be put
to harm. She took it to mean that he
will kill her if she refuses him.
Scared, she relented and had oral sex on him. She felt shamed as she sucked his limp
penis. She was disgusted with him, with
herself and the very act itself. Still
not having an erection, he released his grip on her. While she was physically and emotionally
exhausted, she continued crying for mercy, but [Judge Pacuribot] was boasting
that nobody in his right mind would refuse his demands as he could easily cause
damage to anybody’s honor if he wanted to.
Ms. Villafranca then got up, and put
on her underwear and pants. [Judge
Pacuribot] also got up and took his cell phone.
She pulled the sheets to cover herself because her blouse was on the
opposite side of the bed. However, he
pulled the sheets from her and pushed her to the bed half naked. She braced herself with her arms so that the
she would not be pinned down on the bed again.
But to her surprise, he took a picture of her, using his cell
phone. She was petrified. He then looked at the picture commenting that
it was no good because she was not smiling, so he ordered her to smile as he
will take another picture of her.
Although she defied him, yet he did take another picture of her. She the hurriedly put on her blouse while he
dressed up, fixed himself and tucked his shirt and his gun.
After [Judge Pacuribot] settled the
bill, he led her out of the room. Ms.
Villafranca shrugged him off. At the
garage, she was ushered to the front seat of the car. She was dying to go home. He drove back to
Ms. Villafranca reported to work the
next day. There had been some phone
calls in their office. Like any other
office, whoever has the convenience to answer at the time would pick up the
phone. [Judge Pacuribot] had called
twice their office already and when her officemates answer the phone, he would
just hang the line. When the phone rung
again, she picked it up. It was [Judge Pacuribot]
on the other end. After recognizing her
voice, he belittled her yelling: “Prostitute! Devil! Animal! Why don’t you pick
up the phone?” She was consumed with
fear, and meekly told him that she was just busy. Days passed as he continued to threaten her
with the publication of her half naked picture.
She tried to pacify him sensing that he could make real his
threats. Being married to an overseas
worker with two kids, she was so scared of figuring in a scandal. Her fright of him was burdensome. He would send her text messages telling her
of sweet nothings, but every time she would ignore them, he would burst in
anger and would renew his threats. At
times, she made excuses, like having no cell phone load, but he would insist
that she should secure a load, otherwise he would shame her. He was far too wise to accept excuses. Her constant fear made her succumb to his
blackmails.
[Judge Pacuribot] was always
demanding that Ms. Villafranca send him text messages and letters expressing
nonsense, a matter she could not understand then. She thought it was only to feed his ego. On cross examination, [Judge Pacuribot’s]
counsel asked why she complied with these orders. She answered:
Atty. Kho:
Q: In
your affidavit, do you remember having said that the respondent is forcing you
to send to him text messages?
A: Yes.
Q: And you complied with the sending of
these text messages?
A: Yes, because one day when I was not able to text he called me and he screamed at me over the phone and then he said: “Burikat, animal ka, yawa ka, imo gibuhat… dili ko nimo i-ignore. This will be the last time na imo ko i-ignore sa text or sa tawag nako. Otherwise, you will pay for it.”
Atty.
Ignes translating:
“You whore, you devil, you animal,
don’t you dare! This will be the last
time you will ignore me in my call, otherwise you will pay for it.”
Atty. Kho:
Q: Why did you allow him to do that to you?
A: Because he constantly tells me that he
will develop that picture, he will show that to my mother-in-law and then he
will destroy me and he will create scandal in
Q: Is it not that you are well-connected?
Your grandmother is the mayor. Did you
not report it to her?
A: My husband is not around, Attorney.
Q: And?
A: And what? How would I explain to them that I was
there? How he took my picture? How am I
going to? I don’t know. I just wanted to
protect my family from any shame, from any scandal. And he knew that it would be his hold to
me. And he knew that I would be very
careful with the name that my family had, that is why he is constantly
threatening me with such same arguments, you know. “Ikaw
and madaot ani. Imo ning kuan tana.”
Atty.
Ignes:
“You will be destroyed because of
this.”
Atty.
Kho:
Q: So, you admit that you sent him a lot of
text messages?
A: I did not deny it in my affidavit. I had it in my affidavit, that there were
text messages and forced notes written for him.
[Judge
Pacuribot] also asked her to send him cards with amorous messages. On these, she was also grilled on cross –
examination. It went as follows:
Atty. Kho:
Q: You mean you often wrote some notes?
A: Yes.
I may even have some drafts there wherein he even edited it.
Q: What kind of notes were they?
A: Love notes and there was a time he made
me write a letter to my mother-in-law which the very next day I was posting
myself at the Post Office awaiting for that letter
to come so that I could intercept it.
x
x x x
Q: Also attached to the Comment of
respondent are some notes already marked as Annex 9. Could you go over some of these notes and
tell us if this is your handwriting?
Annexes 9 and 9B.
A: I will not deny that I wrote these
letters but they were under his supervision just like the ones he made to my
mother-in-law and to my husband.
Q: You mean to say you were writing the
letters?
A: Yes.
He will dictate to me what to do, what to say.
x
x x x
Q: So you were acting like a stenographer
who writes down his dictation?
A: I did not act like a stenographer who
wrote down his dictation. But I acted
like a victim who is under threat by some…
Q: The words here in Annexes 9-A and 9-B,
you mean to say all of these are his words, the respondent?
A: As I said Attorney, yes, under his
dictation, under his supervision. Do you
know what is this?
Atty. Kho:
No. Do not ask me a question. You are not allowed to do that.
Witness (continuing)
While
I was doing those writing, I felt that all my limbs were so tired. I felt so heavy writing those letters.
Atty. Kho:
Q: So you admit sending the respondent a
lot more letters that the ones I’ve presented you?
A: I admit that I wrote those letters
under his supervision, yes.
Q: All of the letters that you sent were
all under his supervision?
A: As I said, yes, under his
supervision. There were times that he
would even call me to his chamber to have some cards signed.
Q: So, aside from notes, you also sent him
cards?
A: Yes, I recall signing them because he
would ask me to do so.
x
x x x
Justice Flores:
Q: When you said that the judge would even
call you to his chamber to sign cards, what kinds of cards?
A: Greeting cards, Your Honor.
Atty. Kho:
Q: Hallmark?
A: I don’t recall. I would just easily sign them, do whatever he
wanted and then after he is done touching me I would ask myself to leave.
Q: So, you also sent him lots of greeting
cards?
A: I did not send your client. He gave it to himself.
Q: I am going to show you one last
card. Tell me, is this one of the cards
that you said you signed? I’m going to give this to you. For submission.
A: Yes.
Q: This is one of the cards that you
signed?
A: One of those cards that I signed.
x
x x x
Q: Miss Witness, the handwriting on this
card now marked as Exhibit 6, on the second line of the handwriting are the
words “Love you, Bi.” Could you tell us what is the meaning of the word “Bi”, if you know?
A: It has no significance with me because
your client dictated it to me.
Q: So, it was dictated only.
A: As I said, he dictated words to me.
Ms.
Villafranca’s resistance would always be met with a threat to divulge the
incident in the motel. Although she
yielded to these promptings of sending him text messages or cards or notes, she
never understood why [Judge Pacuribot] behaved so. It was late in the day when enlightenment
came to her that all his orders to her to send him amorous text messages,
letters and cards were not to feed his ego but to prepare for his defense even
while she was as submissive as a lamb.
In his Comment to the administrative charge against him, he cited the
text messages, letters and cards he induced her to send to him to deflect her
charges of rape and unprofessional conduct and prove them untrue. He cited them in his Comment as her manifestation
of “fatal attraction” to him.
x x x x
There had been occasions when [Judge
Pacuribot] summoned Ms. Villfranca to his chambers on the pretext of discussing
probation matters, but once inside his chamber, he would lock the door, grab
her, kiss her, put kiss marks on her neck and chest. He would pull her hair and push her down to
his crotch and demand that she performs oral sex on him. Her overpowering fear of him and the scandal
he can inflict on her family made her yield to him. When she would disobey him he would call her
cell phone with lots of insults like calling her “burikat” or with his threats.
Also, [Judge Pacuribot] demanded
food from Ms. Villafranca which the latter had to bring to his room in Ms.
Tan’s house. Her fear of dire consequences
of her resistance absorbed her. When
demanded to bring food, she would comply out of fear. In her words, “Yes, I went because he would put me under pressure and under fire.” She went not only because of his constant
threat of making public his cell phone picture of her, half naked, but also
because of “his added threat that he is
going to tell my mother-in-law; that he is going to destroy me; that I am
nobody; that my family is no good and he would call me ‘burikat, burikat
(whore)’. He would call me that name
‘yawa ka, animal ka. Sumunod ka nako.” She was angst-ridden with the set – up. She was fearful that somebody might see her
in his rented room or on her way to it or back.
She was made to go there about eight (8) times. All these instances, she saw him display his
gun. She found him too selfish and an
ingrate. Once, on his demand to bring
food, she brought him only pansit and
lumpia which was no longer
crisp. Unappreciative, he furiously
stabbed his plate with fork, breaking it and carped that she served him food
which is not fit for a judge, and suited only to her seaman husband. He also made her eat with him on occasions
which she abhorred so much because according to her “he ate like a pig – eating
fast with shoulders hunched, elbows on the table, mouth noisily chewing the
food.”
When grilled on those eight (8)
times, the following exchanges between [Judge Pacuribot’s] counsel and Ms.
Villafranca took place:
Atty. Kho:
Q: In all of these times, 8 times which you
said, you did not care to offer any resistance?
A: I had offered a lot of resistance,
Attorney, but your client would make it a point that I should not refuse him.
Q: You tried to resist?
A: I had evaded him many times, many times
but he would always point out that I should not refuse him, otherwise he will
destroy me and he did eventually when I finally had the courage to put up with
him, you know.
(The witness is crying at the
witness stand)
Q: During those 8 times which you said you
went to the room of respondent at Sherlita Tan’s place which is near the police
station and the LTO, was there a time that you shouted?
A: I could not shout, I’m scared.
Q: You were scared of what?
A: Scared of your client.
Q: Of the person?
A: Yes and how intimidating he could be
and how evil he could be.
After
eating, Ms. Villafranca would be ordered to take off her clothes; then, [Judge Pacuribot]
would lay on top of her for his sexual pleasures. But penetration would be slight because, as
usual, he had difficulty with erection.
As a consequence, he would push her down to his organ and order her to
do oral sex on him. She detested his
routine of putting kiss marks on her neck and chest which he intentionally used
so that, as he told her, people would know that he owned her. At times, she left his rented room wearing a
hooded jacket in order o hide her face fearful that certain people might
recognize her along the way. There were
times she also left his room without underwear because he would not give it to
her. She hated his sexual abuses, but
she was more afraid of causing scandal to her family.
In
April 2005, after having dinner with [Judge Pacuribot] in his rented room, Ms.
Villafranca was pulled by her hair and was asked, “[w]ho owns you now?” She
answered in fear – “you.” He looked very
pleased. Then, he told her to leave her
husband and promised to help her file a marriage annulment complaint in
[Judge
Pacuribot] wanted to destroy the relationship Ms. Villafranca has with her
husband and his family. He forced her to
write a letter, asking for a break up of marriage from her husband which [Judge
Pacuribot] edited. He also ordered her
to write to her mother-in-law with whom she had some difficulty in their in-law
relationship, to say she wanted a marriage break-up. She told him she does “not need to write
letters to her mother-in-law. What for?”
But he insisted. Her hands felt
heavy writing them, in fact it took her three drafts to write as shown in
Exhibits “B”, “C” and “D” of Ms. Villafranca.
Discontented with her drafts, he took away the last from her, edited it,
and told her he will mail it to her mother-in-law. Thinking he will make good of his threat, the
following day she posted herself outside the Gingoog City Post Office for a
long time and waited for the mailing of said letter so that she can intercept
it. No one came. She instructed the postal clerk that if there
is a letter intended for her mother-in-law, she should not give it to her
mother-in-law but to her instead.
Meantime,
Ms. Villafranca’s morbid fear of [Judge Pacuribot], his threat to mire her and
her family in scandal and her guilt toward her family had been sucking her into
a vortex of emotional and physical collapse.
She bore the immense pain of yielding to him. She seemingly could not withstand the
humiliation for being involved in forced sordid incidents with [Judge
Pacuribot] whom she detested.
On
In
the third week of May 2005, Ms. Villafranca was persistently instigated by [Judge
Pacuribot] to file an annulment case against her husband. Later, he asked her to sign what Ms.
Villafranca calls a “ridiculous document” he drafted wherein it purported to
show that she and her husband agreed that each of them may freely cohabit with
a third person. She signed it in the
face of his threats. Worse, he asked her
to ask her husband to sign the same document.
On
Citing
her husband’s beating her, Ms. Villafranca pleaded to [Judge Pacuribot] to stop
molesting her. He countered with an
unusual suggestion – File a rape case against him. When she refused, the threat of the dire
consequences of her refusal came again.
She still kept from her husband what she was going through.
But
[JudgePacuribot] seized another incident to destroy her more. On
x x
x x
In
July 2006, Ms. Villafranca’s request for transfer was granted and she started
working in Cagayan de Oro City on
After
her transfer to the Probation Office in Cagayan de Oro City on
Atty. Kho:
Q: So, what you told him at that time was
that you were scared?
A: Attorney, I was walking in fear most of
those times and even up to now when I came home I am walking in fear. I don’t know if I’m safe. I don’t know if the next day I will be dead. I don’t know.
Those were the times when I asked my husband to accompany me because I’m
always scared all the time. Even if I
just go out of the gate ask my husband to accompany me.
(At this juncture,
witness is sobbing)
Ms.
Villafranca decided to fight back with this administrative charge. She subscribed her Affidavit-Complaint before
State Prosecutor Roberto A. Escaro on
On
the same day, Ms. Villafranca submitted her Affidavit-Complaint to the Office
of the Court Administrator. [Judge
Pacuribot] filed his Comment. Among
others, he cited that Ms. Villafranca was “fatally attracted to him” and that
he refused to reciprocate because “he is a judge and happily married,” and for
the reason that Ms. Villafranca’s “misdirected adoration is atrociously
immoral.” Ms. Villafranca filed a
Rejoinder refuting point by point the defenses of [Judge Pacuribot] and calling
them lies. Ms. Villafranca said his
defenses are presumptuous and revolting because in the Hall of Justice, female
personnel “invariably veer away from his path in trepidation.” She asserts that [Judge Pacuribot’s]
extramarital indiscretions are well known, if not well documented, in Gingoog
City, that it is common knowledge that his mistress Sheryl Gamulo, whom [Judge
Pacuribot] housed in Motomull St., Gingoog City, gave birth to two (2) children
by [Judge Pacuribot] on 16 October 2004 and 02 September 2005 at the Maternity
Hospital, Cagayan de Oro City; that the eldest child was baptized in Opol,
Misamis Oriental with Atty. Wilfredo Bibera, his clerk of Court, and Dondi
Pallugna, his driver, as baptismal sponsors.
Ms. Villafranca claims therein that respondent judge is also known to
have sired a daughter in
To
be able to put behind her harrowing experience, Ms. Villafranca applied for
leave of absence with their office to work abroad knowing that [Judge Pacuribot’s]
order in People v. Anude and his
letter to her superiors have effectively made her lose that desired
promotion. Eventually she left the
country on
In his Comment,[9]
Judge Pacuribot denied the charges of Ms. Tan and Villafranca for “lack of
factual and legal bases”; and opposed the allegations on the ground that the
same were motivated by revenge and were part of a comprehensive and sinister
plan to drive him out of service.
Judge Pacuribot made total denial of Ms.
Tan’s charges against him and claimed that the alleged incidents on 20 and
In particular, Judge Pacuribot denied
the alleged rape incidents on 20-21 October 2004 in Cagayan de Oro City, and
interposed the defense of alibi. He
contended that he was in faraway
Judge Pacuribot admitted that he did not hold trial
on
He, thus, concluded that it was
impossible for him to be with Ms. Tan on 20 and
Judge Pacuribot also cited several factors which made
Ms. Tan’s allegations unbelievable:
1. Ms. Tan’s behavior was not reflective of a
rape victim. Ms. Tan did not immediately
report the incident to the authorities. As
a 43-year-old lady who is no longer naïve and having assisted as stenographer
in countless rape cases, she should know how important it is to immediately
report the incident.
2. Judge Pacuribot pointed to Ms. Tan’s admission that she did not put up
a struggle when he allegedly brought her to City Lodge Motel and Discovery
Hotel. Had she wanted to catch the
attention of employees, she could have done so.
He also stressed that what Ms. Tan called a headboard where he allegedly
put his gun in the motel room was merely less than one inch in width, too
narrow for a .45 cal. gun to rest.
3. On
4. On 1 Septemeber 2005, all the staff of Judge
Pacuribot, including Ms. Tan, attended his birthday party at his house in
Cagayan de Oro City, where she merrily danced with dance instructors and posed
with Judge Pacuribot’s wife.
5. On May 2006, five months after she filed the
administrative charge against Judge Pacuribot, Ms. Tan joined the Search for
Mrs. Gingoog City Contest as one of the candidates and she paraded in the
gymnasium, all smiles, while attired in an elegant gown.
6. Judge Pacuribot alleged that Ms. Tan and her husband were publicly
known to be putting up a façade that all was well with them, although they
constantly quarreled and had been sleeping in separate rooms already.
Judge Pacuribot disputed Ms. Tan’s version of how he
became the lessee of a room at Ms. Tan’s house.
He claimed that in January 2005, she came to know that he was looking
for a new boarding house and she offered two small rooms at her house available
for rent. He chose the one facing the
Police Station of Gingoog City, which he claimed to be only about five meters
more or less from the room he rented. He
paid an advance rental of P5,000.00.
Judge Pacuribot denied sexually harassing Ms.
Tan. In refuting her claim that he
sexually harassed her in his chambers, he countered that this could not have
happened as his court aide, Placido Abellana, was always in his chamber with
him. If Abellana was out on an errand,
his security officer, SPO1 Ronald Espejon, temporarily took over. There had never been any moment in his
chambers that he was without companion. There
was always either his court aide or his security officer with him. Even when he had visitors, his court aide was
still in his chambers to maintain transparency and avoid unwarranted talk. Once in a while, his branch clerk of court,
Atty. Willfredo Bibera, Jr., would go to his chambers to confer with him
regarding cases. Sometimes, too, his
security officer Espejon would take his blood pressure in his chambers. Under these circumstances, Judge Pacuribot
argued that no sexual
harassment could have occurred. He also called
attention to the fact that Ms. Tan’s affidavit and testimony presented the
dates of the alleged sexual harassments as follows:
The
Judge Pacuribot explained that these administrative
and criminal charges filed against him by Tan and Villafranca were part and
parcel of a grand plot hatched by Ronnie Waniwan, a radio commentator, to oust
him from office. He claimed that Waniwan
was then facing four counts of libel in his sala. The City Prosecutor recommended P50,000.00
bail for each. When Waniwan filed a
motion to reduce bail bond, respondent denied it for several reasons, i.e., (1) there was a previous
conviction, (2) he was not from
Judge Pacuribot believed that Ms. Tan succumbed to
the egging of Waniwan to jump the gun on him.
Ms. Tan knew that her job was in danger because of her growing
inefficiency, a subject of his several warnings, since her inefficiency would
essentially affect the performance of his court, a scenario which he abhorred,
having been a consistent performer in the disposal of cases during his days as
labor arbiter. In fact, he considered
Ms. Tan the most inefficient among the four stenographers he had. She was allegedly lazy, inarticulate in the
English language, and flawed in spelling, which hampered her effectiveness in preparing
transcriptions. Worse, due to her
moonlighting as manager of the Tan-Hoegee Internet Café, she would usually go
home during office hours to catch some sleep.
He believed that his good relationship with her soured when he asked Ms.
Tan to be more focused on the job; that he was going to move to a new house; and
when he did not let her borrow P200,000.00, or at least be a guarantor of
her loan.
Anent the written charges of Ms.
Villafranca, Judge Pacuribot specifically denied all material allegations therein for being untrue. In particular, he denied the alleged rape incident
on
Judge Pacuribot claimed that on 22 February 2005, at
5:00 o’clock more or less in the afternoon, he asked a certain Fil Sumaylo to
buy and cook a big fish and ten pieces of small octopus because they would have
dinner at the latter’s house. At about
Also, Judge Pacuribot gave several reasons why he would not venture at all to go
to
In denying Ms. Villafranca’s
allegations of sexual harassment and acts of lasciviousness, Judge Pacuribot
pointed out that the acts of grabbing,
kissing and performing oral sex in his chambers could not have happened as his
court aide, Abellana, who is the uncle of Ms. Villafranca, was always present
in his chambers, aside from the fact that his chamber was just beside the room
of the staff.
Judge Pacuribot contended that Ms. Villafranca’s charges
were improbable. He assessed her to be a
very intelligent woman with a strong personality. Ms. Villafranca is well connected, because
she is a recognized illegitimate daughter of a certain Polkem Motomull, a one-time
member of the Provincial Board of Misamis Oriental and nephew of Mrs. Ruthie
Guingona, incumbent City Mayor of Gingoog City.
A sister of her father is the Assistant City Auditor of Gingoog City,
while Judge Pacuribot’s predecessor,
Judge Potenciano de los Reyes, is her father’s first cousin-in-law. RTC Judge Downey Valdevilla of Cagayan de Oro
City is also her uncle; and even Judge Pacuribot’s court aide, Abellana, is her
father’s first cousin. Considering the
big family of Ms. Villafranca, anyone will think, not just twice, but several
times, before doing anything against her. Ms. Villafranca will not just allow herself to
be raped and beaten by a stranger like him in Gingoog City. He found out that, as indicated in the police
blotter of
Judge Pacuribot denied calling Ms. Villafranca through
her cellphone. On the contrary, it was
she who was calling him. She also sent
him adoring or alluring text messages including seductive notes and poems. He claimed that being a happily married man,
he ignored the flirtatious and seductive advances of Ms. Villafranca, to her
consternation and bewilderment. He
claimed that her adulation of him came to an abrupt end and metamorphosed into an
intense hatred and dislike after he issued the
Judge Pacuribot further complained that Ms.
Villafranca would follow up cases of her relatives in his sala.
After weighing the evidences and
arguments of all the parties, Investigating Justice Dy-Liacco Flores found:
Fatherhood
unproven
On
the Anonymous Letters about [Judge Pacuribot’s] illegitimate fatherhood, the
Investigator finds the claim unsupported by any documentary evidence. Although the certification of the hospital’s
administrative officer proves correct the claim in the anonymous letter as to
(1) the hospital; (2) the identity of the mother; (3) the number of children
delivered; and (4) the date of birth of the two children, but it did not shed
light on the identity of the children’s father.
In this case, the certificates of birth of the two (2) children
mentioned in the anonymous letter showing [Judge Pacuribot’s] fatherhood would
be the best evidence adequate to prove the claim. With no-record-of-birth-certifications issued
by the local civil city registrar and the office of the Civil Registrar
General, no finding of guilt can be made.
RAPE AND SEXUAL HARASSMENTS PROVEN BEYOND REASONBLE DOUBT
Ms.
Villafranca’s story of rape and repeated sexual harassments is credible. [Judge Pacuribot’s] defense of denial and
alibi failed to overcome complainants’ evidence.
On
the rape in Butuan City motel, [Judge Pacuribot] insists on the improbability
of his presence at the scene of the crime because he alleges that he does not
go out at night in Gingoog City without company for two (2) reasons – that he
is security conscious and that there is an NPA threat on his person.
Firstly,
[Judge Pacuribot’s] being security conscious is no proof of improbability in
going to Butuan City. So many criminals
are security conscious yet they go out alone at night to commit a crime. Hence, his being security conscious could not
have deterred him to go out.
Secondly,
his claim of an NPA threat on his person is suspect. He claims that he learned he was marked for
NPA liquidation when he was given a copy of the affidavits of two (2) captured
NPAs named Marvin Lumod and Rico Roselem marked as Exhibits “22” and “23”
respectively. Unfortunately, these two
(2) affidavits will not help [Judge Pacuribot].
Marvin E. Lumod’s Affidavit is dated 20 June 2006 while Rico A.
Roselem’s Affidavit is dated 19 June 2006.
The incident in Butuan City occurred on 22 February 2005. The reason, therefore, in not wanting to go
out at night without company on 22 February 2005 was still absent. [Judge Pacuribot’s] alibi that he was in
Gingoog City on 22 February 2005 is backed up by the testimonies of SPO1 Ronald
Espejon and Placido Abellana. But these
two are his loyals aside from the fact that Abellana, as his court aide, is
also one whose employment is under control and supervision of [Judge
Pacuribot]. Thus, on that account, their
testimony must be taken with grain of salt.
Their testimony cannot discredit the straightforward testimony of Ms.
Villafranca on how [Judge Pacuribot] deceived her twice – on the purpose and on
the place. He invited her for dinner but
ravished her instead. They agreed on The
Mansion in Gingoog City for the dinner, yet drove her to a Butuan City motel.
[Judge
Pacuribot] asks: Why did Ms. Villafranca
not report to the authorities that he sexually assaulted her, if true, when she
even reported to the police that her husband raped her on 26 May 2005? [Judge Pacuribot], to prove that Ms.
Villafranca reported to the Police, presented Annex “3”, a certified copy of an
entry in the Police Blotter of Gingoog City.
[Judge Pacuribot] should have noted that in that certified copy, it is
shown that it was his security officer, SPO1 Ronald Espejon, not Ms. Villafranca,
who had the report entered in the police blotter. The certification did not say that Ms.
Villafranca appeared at all in the Police Station and had the incident
blottered. All that Ms. Villafranca did
was to ask Espejon for assistance because he was beaten by her husband.
[Judge
Pacuribot] claims that the administrative charge is Ms. Villafranca’s reprisal
against him. He claims that Ms.
Villafranca appears to be “fatally attracted to him” and that he “remains
steadfast in his refusal to reciprocate he atrociously immoral and misdirected
adoration to him.” He claims the
administrative charge is proof of the fury of a woman scorned. On the “fatal attraction” [Judge Pacuribot]
cited the text messages, notes and cards he claims Ms. Villfranca sent
him. Ms. Villaffranca explained how he
has always demanded of her to send him those, the reason for which she could
not fathom then. He would even have
cards in his chamber and then summon her to sign them. When she resists, he would let out a barge of
insults and threats. [Judge Pacuribot’s]
possession of those letters, cards, and text messages was adequately explained
by Ms. Villafranca.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] theory of Ms. Villafranca’s “fatal attraction” and “misdirected
adoration” of him is funny. He never
disputed the testimony of the two (2) complainants that [Judge Pacuribot] is
reputed in the Hall of Justice as “terror”, that he is fond of humiliating
people in public, using excoriating language on his victim, that female
employees avoid him and veer away from him when they meet in the Hall of
Justice. He also failed to specifically
deny the claim of Ms. Villafranca that he housed his mistress, Sheryl Gamulo,
in Motomul St., Gingoog City. He also
failed to specifically deny her claim that he sired a ten (10) year old
daughter in Ozamis City. Will all the
dark side of his character publicly known, hardly would a twenty-nine (29)
year-old, very pretty married woman who [Judge Pacuribot] claims is very
intelligent fall for such character. Thus,
[Judge Pacuribot’s] claim of Ms. Villafranca’s “fatal attraction” and
“misdirected adoration” of him becomes incredible.
[Judge
Pacuribot] asks why did Ms. Villafranca allow herself to be raped and
victimized over a prolonged period of time when there were people capable of
helping or protecting her considering her illustrious, although illegitimate,
lineage? Further, if he committed sexual
abuses on Ms. Villafranca at his rented room which was very near the police
station, why did she not shout or report to the police?
The
fact that Ms. Villafranca is well connected in Gingoog City was actually not a
boon but a bane. It was on that account
that she wanted to protect at all costs their family from any scandal. [Judge Pacuribot] capitalized on it with his
constant threat that he will bring scandal to them by making public her half
naked picture taken in the motel. Her
wanting to protect her family from shame cowed her into silence and submission.
Her testimony demonstrates that. It
reads:
Atty.
Kho:
Q: A
cellphone picture that is what you are afraid of?
A: No,
also his added threats that he is going to tell my mother-in-law, that he is
going to destroy me, that I am nobody, that my family is no good, and that he
would call me “burikat, burikat.” He
would call me that name. “Yawa ka. Animal ka. Sumunod ka nako.”
(Atty.
Ignes – Div. Clerk of Court interpreting:)
“Burikat” means a whore. “You lewd devil, and you have to follow me.”
x x x x
Q: Why did you allow him to do that to you?
A: Because he constantly tells me that he
will develop that picture, he will show that to my mother-in-law and then he
will destroy me and he will create a scandal in Gingoog City.
Q: Is it not that you are well-connected?
A: My husband is not around, Attorney.
Q: And?
A: And what? How could I explain to them
that I was there? How he took my
picture? How am I going to? I don’t know.
I just wanted to protect my family from my shame, from any scandal. And he knew that it would be his hold to
me. And he knew that I would be very
careful with the name that my family had, that is why he is constantly
threatening me with such same argument, you know: “Ikaw
and madaot ani. Ino ning huan tanan.”
(Atty.
Ignes:)
“You
will be destroyed because of this.”
Ms.
Villafranca said she was scared of [Judge Pacuribot’s] person and “how
intimidating he could be and how evil he could be.” She feared him because when she resists him
he would tell her “madaot ka ani.” (You will be destroyed because of
this.) So she had to yield to him
because she knew he could do what he threatens to do – to destroy her. She points to the Order dated 6 June 2005 in People v. Anude of how indeed he had
destroyed her.
[Judge
Pacuribot] claims in his Comment and Consolidated Memorandum that Ms.
Villafranca is a very intelligent girl and with strong personality, reasons why
it is improbable to make her a victim of rape and sexual harassments. And yet, when he issued the Anude Order, he made her look like she
is an irredeemable incompetent who “cannot spell”, who “uses high falutin words
in her Post Sentence Investigation Report which she herself may not have
understood,” whose sentence construction is horrendous,” “her proper noun is
written with small letter” and that “her adjectives or adverbs do not fit the
things or persons described.” [Judge
Pacuribot] engages in double – talk.
In
the three – paged Anude Order, [Judge
Pacuribot] tried to show that Ms. Villafranca’s incompetence is toxically mixed
with acute haughtiness because Ms. Villafranca refuses to consult the judge or
see him or refused to come to him even when summoned repeatedly. [Judge Pacuribot] should not gripe. He summoned Ms. Villafranca to his chamber on
25 May 2005. Once inside, [Judge
Pacuribot] slapped her for not filing her petition for annulment of marriage
and her head with his clenched fist. He
planted on her neck kiss marks which he said he wanted her husband to see. When Ms. Villafranca’s husband saw them
later, he beat her. At 2:00 am of 26 May
2005, SPO1 Ronald Espejon claims that Ms. Villafranca called him for
assistance. It was the start of Ms.
Villafranca’s growing defiance to [Judge Pacuribot], a fact that roiled him to
point of issuing the Anude Order
eleven (11) days later.
[Judge
Pacuribot] also belittled Ms. Villafranca repeatedly in said Order by referring
to here as “MERE Clerk II/understudy Johanna M. Villafranca of Gingoog City
Parole and Probation Office,” calling her “visibly inexperienced mere clerk,”
“very raw,” and that her report was atrocious.
He ordered her Post Sentence Investigation Report returned “OFFICIALLY”
to the superior of Ms. Villafranca for proper corrections. [Judge Pacuribot] stated therein that Ms.
Villafranca cannot be located in her office as she is always absent per
information in her office. He stated
that she should not be allowed to practice making post sentence investigation
in preparation for a desired promotion.
The
Anude Order is the classic proof of
how Ms. Villafranca’s disobedience to [Judge Pacuribot] ended up in her
destruction – “Madaut ka ani.” The Order destroyed her person and her
career. Therein, he has beaten Ms.
Villafranca’s career to a pulp. Any
superior of Ms. Villafranca who will read the Anude Order will block any desire of Ms. Villafranca for promotion
which the latter was aiming for at the time.
She rued with tears how the Anude
Order displaced her from her job.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] repeated harping in said Order about Ms. Villafranca’s failure to
consult him and to come to him even when summoned, rendered more believable Ms.
Villafranca’s claim that [Judge Pacuribot] would summon her to his chamber on
the pretext of official matters and thereafter subject her to his
lasciviousness conduct.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] claim that Ms. Villafranca was part of Ms. Waniwan’s conspiracy
was unproven. All the Sun Star pictures
of Ms. Tan’s filing of the criminal complaint before the City Prosecutor’s
Office did not show at any instance the face of Ms. Villafranca. Also, she made it clear in her testimony that
sometime in February 2006, when Ms. Tan filed her criminal complaint with the
Office of the City Prosecutor, two other media men called her up to see if they
can get a copy of her Affidavit-Complaint.
But she refused to prevent the public from knowing what she went
through.
Indubitably,
Ms. Villafranca’s testimony and the anguish that came with it can only come
from a very sad experience. Even on the
very delicate matters where [Judge Pacuribot] had stripped her mercilessly of
her dignity and womanhood, Ms. Villafranca was frank and straightforward, proof
of how outraged she was when [Judge Pacuribot] had raped her and had sexually
harassed her repeatedly.
Her
spontaneity in answering the cross examination questions, the anguish she
revealed in court, her very natural and coherent way of telling how she was
ravished and abused repeatedly as an underling leaves no room to doubt her
testimony and the things she said under oath in her Affidavit – Complaint, her
Rejoinder, and her Sworn Statement. Her
tears could only be the clues to her righteous indignation against the
indignities she suffered from [Judge Pacuribot]. Indeed, the conviction to reveal the truth
must have been so strong that she had to come back to the country hurdling
employment restrictions and the difficulty of not having saved enough yet for
her trip back just to testify in this case.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] claim that her administrative charge is a fabrication is
unacceptable against the avalanche of Ms. Villafranca’s evidence. The Investigator cannot find any valid reason
to sustain [Judge Pacuribot’s] denial and alibi as a defense.
[Judge
Pacuribot] is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of rape in
While
[Judge Pacuribot] committed physical assault on Ms. Villafranca on 25 May 2005
when after summoning her to his chamber, he slapped her for not filing the
petition to annul her marriage and hit her head with his clenched fist, the
same is deemed absorbed by the offense of sexual harassment considering that brute
force and intimidation had always been used by [Judge Pacuribot] to commit said
offenses.
On
the eight (8) occasions that [Judge Pacuribot] had carnal knowledge of Ms.
Villafranca in his rented room while [Judge Pacuribot’s] gun was always
displayed on the table, implying the commission of rape, the same are treated
as sexual harassments only for Ms. Villafranca’s failure to state when they
were committed and to provide details on those occasions.
Ms.
Tan’s agony started with [Judge Pacuribot’s] deception. He made her believe he will bring her in his
car to the bus terminal from Pryce Plaza Hotel, only to surprise her after
riding with him by bringing her to the City Lodge Motel to ravish her. Again, while about to leave City Lodge Motel,
he deceived her again by telling her that he will bring her now to the bus
terminal, only to bring her to the Discovery Hotel, so that he can ravish her some more
later. Aside from deception, [Judge
Pacuribot] uses extravagantly another tool – intimidation. Immediately after Ms. Tan settled herself on
the front seat on that infelicitous night of
His
repeated intimidating warnings on Ms. Tan that she could harm her if she
disobeys were indeed proven true. On
[Judge
Pacuribot] uses force and cruelty on his hapless victims. When he ordered her to do oral sex on him and
she refused, he pulled her hair and pushed her face to his penis with an order:
“Suck it. Let it in till deep your throat.
Let my penis reach your throat.”
He tightened his hold on her that she was frightened he might break her
neck. In pain, she had to plead: “Don’t pull my hair, sir. It’s very painful. What a sadist you are.” While he was sucking her nipple and mashing
her breasts, he was telling her: “This is the breast of a lustful woman.” While he was planting vile kisses on her neck
to produce “chiquinini” on her, he
told her: “I am going to plant lots of
kiss marks here to let the people know that you passed through my hands.” Upon hearing it, Ms. Tan cried. Indeed, [Judge Pacuribot] is a sadist beyond description
capable of declaring his unconcealed intention to parade her to the public as
his victim.
At
the trial, when issues would touch on her tender feelings towards her family or
when it would recall [Judge Pacuribot’s] cruelty that crushed her
respectability or the delicateness of her womanhood, she would invariably sob
on the witness stand. The way he
ravished her and sexually harassed her showed how irrationally lewd or
unbearably cruel he was.
Even
when Ms. Tan was already abused, still the thought that he is her superior had
never been lost to her. Ms. Tan has
always addressed him – “Sir.”
“Why did you bring me here,
Sir? Didn’t I tell you I will just take
a taxi to Agora Terminal?
“Don’t pull my hair, Sir. It is very painful. What a sadist you are.”
“You are so rude, Sir, we work in
the same office yet you disgrace me.”
“Sir, I just take a taxi to Agora.”
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] moral ascendancy over Ms. Tan was an undeniable factor to her
blind submission to his depravity.
[Judge
Pacuribot] pointed to Ms. Tan’s inefficiency, her not being a happily married woman,
that her husband is a wife beater and a violent man, that she is in financial
straits who even run to him for help. It
is precisely these weaknesses, personal problems, and economic difficulties
which added to Ms. Tan’s inability to fight back and made her so
submissive. She was the ideal prey. As she was made to admit during her cross
examination, she is the lone breadwinner in the family with two (2) children to
support.
[Judge
Pacuribot] challenges Ms. Tan’s claim of rape and repeated sexual harassments
by arguing, to wit:
“Why did she not refuse to go with
respondent when he allegedly fetch her at Pryce Plaza Hotel on
“At the Discovery Hotel, if indeed
she stayed and slept there all by herself, why did she not escape or call for
help and instead wait for respondent to arrive the next morning? So that he can sexually assault her
again? Or why did she fail to ask for
help from any of the hotel staff or from anybody while in the Discovery Hotel?”
“If she immediately reported to the
police authorities the maltreatment of her son by her husband, why did she not
complain of the alleged incidents of sexual harassments and acts of
lasciviousness she experienced from the respondent?”
Despite her claims of having been
subjected to rape, sexual harassment and acts of lasciviousness, why did she
gleefully socialize with respondent during their Christmas party and
respondent’s birthday celebration?”
Ms.
Tan had only two (2) options –
“Lose
her job by promptly fighting back at [Judge Pacuribot]; or
“Keep
her job tolerating him with muffled defiance.
Ms.
Tan had correctly assessed the far reaches of his influence. When she was looking for a lawyer to help her
file the administrative charge, no lawyer in
Ms.
Tan as a victim cannot be put in the same footing as other rape victims where
the offender holds no control on the victim’s survival and has no moral
ascendancy over her. Fighting back
immediately against the offender is a rational move. In the case at bench, [Judge Pacuribot’s]
moral ascendancy and influence over her was a given. It was that together with his flair to
humiliate people and his blackmails which made her succumb to his sexual
abuses. Ms. Tan values her job; in fact,
she consciously keeps track of her performance ratings. An underling who
believes that her immediate superior wields control over her continued
employment or sudden separation from service will cower in fear to the point of
tolerating the indignities committed on her.
As [Judge Pacuribot] impressed on her, looking for a new job at her age
is not easy.
At
the time that [Judge Pacuribot] was taking advantage of Ms. Tan, [Judge
Pacuribot’s] proverbial explosives temper and short fuse were being put to good
use to terrorize her with remarkable frequency.
That dark spot in his character which has been brought up front in other
people’s consciousness in the months following his arrival in the Hall of
Justice as a “terror” is enough intimidation.
To Ms. Tan, to “submit now and complain later” is a good, albeit
temporary, shelter against immediate public humiliation or job separation. Thus, Ms. Tan’s failure to report to the
police is understandable.
Also,
[Judge Pacuribot] seems to have a masterful skill on how to exploit his
victim’s weaknesses. Ms. Tan is a
stenographer, a position she has difficulty coping with because as [Judge
Pacuribot] noted, her spelling, her grammar and her knowledge of the English
language are not at par with the demands of her job. He has warned her of her “inefficiency” and
of staying late in the evening as manager of the internet café. He pointed to her joining without prior SC
permission a trip to Hongkong on a weekend in a packaged tour for stenographers
in Cagayan de Oro City. Thus, with such
faults and difficulties, she is the ideal prey.
Her fear of losing a source of livelihood has made her behave submissive
to him.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] alibi that on October 20 and 21, 2004, he was in
To
support [Judge Pacuribot’s] claim that he was present on those days in
Noteworthy
is the testimony of Ms. Tan stating that when she met [Judge Pacuribot] on
Monday in their office after the rape incident, the latter told her not to file
anymore her leave for October 20 and 21, 2004 and bragging, ”Ako na gud ni, kinsay magbuot nako?” (It
is me, who will prevail against me). If
he can forego the filing of application for leave for his subordinates, much
more is there reason for him not to submit an application for leave for his own
absence reason why his Certificate of Service for the month of October is not
reliable.
On
Mere
denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, like alibi, is a self-serving
negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings
of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally
held to prevail.
[Judge
Pacuribot] cites Ms. Tan’s merry behavior during the Christmas Party and his
Birthday Party in Cagayan de Oro City as hardly the behavior of a rape victim
or a victim or repeated sexual harassments.
Normally, such a victim is expected to behave with animosity and
grievance toward the offender.
Unfortunately for her, she cannot afford to display such animosity and
grievance unless it is at the cost of her job.
If she cannot defy his demands when he victimizes her, shouldn’t her
economic realities prompt her to win her war with friendship? [Judge Pacuribot] should be reminded that in
sexual harassments under Section 3 of RA No. 7877, an offense is committed
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is
accepted by the subject of said act.
Ms.
Tan’s testimony was clear, frank and consistent. Her candid and clear-cut account of how
respondent judge had been deceitful and intimidating in his dealings with her
that evening has inspired belief. And
throughout her testimony, she succeeded in revealing how [Judge Pacuribot] took
full advantage of his moral ascendancy over her as his underling, destroying whatever
resistance she could put up by belittling her, outwitting her and insulting her
to reduce her to submission.
There
is no standard reaction of a victim in a rape incident. In fact, not every victim of rape can be
expected to act in conformity with the expectations of anyone who has not been
subjected to the same danger at any time.
The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are
unpredictable; people react differently.
Investigator,
thus, finds [Judge Pacuribot] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges of
rape committed on October 20 and 21, 2004 in Cagayan de Oro City, and guilty of
sexual harassments committed in respondent judge’s chamber in RTC, Branch 27,
Hall of Justice,
One
can see in these two cases a common strategy used by [Judge Pacuribot] in
achieving his vile purposes. He used
deceit on Ms. Tan. He used deceit on Ms.
Villafranca. He used intimidation on Ms.
Tan and he used it on Ms. Villafranca.
He makes use of a substantial blackmail against both.
In
the case of People v. Fernandez, the
Supreme Court had occasion to instruct us on the effects of intimidation, thus:
Physical
resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are
employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole
test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an
accused. Rape victims show no uniform
reaction. Some may offer strong
resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at
all. The use of a weapon, by itself, is
strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the
victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission. Thus, the law does not impose upon the private
complainant the burden of proving resistance.
[Judge
Pacuribot] computed nine (9) months, twenty-one (21) days as interval from the
time Ms. Villafranca claimed she was raped on
In
the case of People v. Aguero, Jr., where
there was a two (2) years delay in the filing of the complaint for rape, the
Supreme Court said:
As
to the alleged two-year delay in the filing of the complaint, suffice it to
say, that complainant’s failure to promptly report the incident does not
sufficiently detract from her credibility and cannot be taken against her. It has been held that a rape victim’s delay
or hesitation in reporting the crime does not destroy the truth of the
complaint and is not an indication of deceit as it is common for a rape victim
to prefer silence for fear for her aggressor and lack of courage to face the
public stigma of having been sexually abused.
In
the case of People v. Espinosa, where
the criminal complaint was filed about one and a half years from commission of
the offense, the Supreme Court said:
x x
x Delay in reavealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a
fabricated charge. Many victims of rape
never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to
silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the
world or risk the offender’s making good on his threats. This is understandable, considering the
inbred modesty of Filipinas and their aversion to the public disclosure of
matters affecting their honor.
Delay
in the filing of the charges does not necessarily undermine the credibility of
witnesses.
The
Supreme Court has deemed delay as justified when there is fear of reprisal,
social humiliation, familial considerations and economic reasons. In the case of Ms. Tan, her tormentor is her
superior who constantly dangles his influence and power over her and her
job. As regards Ms. Villafranca, the
threat to destroy her, her family and her family’s good name was ever present;
thus, haunting her emotionally and psychologically. The delay in reporting the rape cases committed
by [Judge Pacuribot] has been justified.
On
the repeated sexual harassments and violence committed separately on the
persons of Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca within the chamber of [Judge Pacuribot],
the latter deems them improbable because of the situation in his chamber. He points out that outside his chamber is the
staff room and there is a glassed window that divides them. Ms. Villafranca cited the incident on 13 October
2005 where [Judge Pacuribot] did lascivious acts on her inside the chamber in
the presence of Placido Abellana, the court aide, and the latter’s just turned
his back and pretended to see nothing.
In
the case of People v. Lavador, the
rapist-appellant argued that rape was impossible due to the presence of the
victim’s son on her side. The Supreme
Court said:
Nor
can we accept the argument that the rape was improbable due to the presence of
Noniluna’s sons by her side. This Court
has repeatedly declared that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape
can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the roadside, within the
school premises, inside the house where there are several occupants and even in
the same room where other members of the family are sleeping. x x x.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] defense of “improbability” cannot, therefore, be accepted.
[Judge
Pacuribot] declares that the charges against him are complainants’ tools of
revenge against him. He cites his Order in People v. Anude and his letter reporting Ms. Villafranca’s
negligence as reasons from Ms. Villafranca’s anger and resentment. Against Ms. Tan, he cites his warning against
her inefficiency as stenographer, her moonlighting in her internet caféhis
refusal to grant her a loan of P200,000.00 or being her guarantor.
In
the case of Simbajon v. Esteban, the
Supreme Court in believing the testimony of the complainant saying:
“The
investigating judge correctly disregarded the respondent’s imputation of ill
motive on the part of complainant. No married
woman would cry sexual assault, subject herself and her family to public
scrutiny and humiliation, and strain her marriage in order to perpetuate a
falsehood.
Indeed,
it is against human nature for a married woman to fabricate a story that would
not only expose herself to a lifetime of dishonor, but destry her family as
well. Besides, there is no sufficient
evidence of any ill-motive imputable to Mesdames Tan and Villafranca to narrate
anything other than their respective desire to tell the truth and seek redress
for the wrong inflicted on each of them.
For the kind of reputation [Judge Pacuribot] has in the Hall of Justice
and by his behavior where he projects himself as full of influence and power,
these two women will be the last to even cross the path of respondent judge
without just cause. Thus, the
presumption applies that, one will not act and prevaricate “and cause damnation to one who brought him no harm or injury.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] theory that all these charges are part of the sinister plan to
oust [Judge Pacuribot] from office at the instigation of Ms. Waniwan is far
fetched.
On
No
married woman would subject herself to public scrutiny and humiliation to foist
a false charge of rape. Neither would
she take the risk of being alienated from her husband and her family. The fact that the victim resolved to face the
ordeal and relate in public what many similarly situated would have kept secret
evinces that she did so to obtain justice.
Her willingness and courage to face the authorities as well as to submit
to medical examination are mute but eloquent confirmation of her sincere
resolve.
Finally,
it may be true there are minor and trivial discrepancies in Ms. Tan’s
testimony, but they neither impair the integrity of the victim’s evidence as a
whole nor reflect negatively on the witness’ honesty. Such inconsistencies, which might have been
caused by the natural fickleness of memory, even tend to strengthen, rather
than weaken the credibility of the witness, for they shake off the suspicion of
a rehearsed testimony.
In
sum, [Judge Pacuribot] should be made administratively liable for the charges
against him in A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-1982 and RTJ-06-1983.
Black’s
Law Dictionary defines integrity to mean “soundness or moral principle and
character.” It is said to be synonymous
with “probity,” “honesty,” and
“uprightness.” The evidence adduced
indubitably show that [Judge Pacuribot] lacks the honesty in dealing with his
two subordinates herein. Not only did he
fail to live up to the high moral standard expected of a member of the
Judiciary but he has transgressed the norms of morality expected of every
person.
[Judge
Pacuribot’s] offenses in raping his victims and sexually harassing them were
committed with aggravation. He knew they
were married but instead of helping strengthen or protect their marriage, he
tried his best to destroy their marital bonds.
Indeed,
[Judge Pacuribot’s] reprehensible acts amount to gross misconduct, and
immorality the depravity of which is quite rare. They undoubtedly violated the Code of
Judicial Conduct. They are classified as
severe charges under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Under
Section 22 of the same Rules, any of the following sanctions may be imposed if
the respondent is guilty of a serious charge:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture
of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government
owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case
include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for more that three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00
but not exceeding P40,000.00.
In Simbajon v. Esteban, the respondent
Judge Esteban, for his sexual advances on one of his female subordinates which
consisted of “grabbing her, kissing her all over her face, embracing her and
touching her right breast” was preventively suspended for the duration of the
investigation until further notice AND was subsequently dismissed from service
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except leave credits and with
prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government – owned or controlled corporations.
Herein
[Judge Pacuribot’s] conduct is far worse that those of Judge Esteban. [Judge Pacuribot’s] acts indubitably went far
beyond the bounds of decency and morality.
He raped and repeatedly sexually assaulted, not only one, but two
female, married subordinates. He did not
only violate his victims’ womanhood and their dignities as persons but he aimed
to weaken, then eventually destroy two families. By such act, [Judge Pacuribot] disgraced his
noble office, as well as the judiciary, in the eyes of the public. He has shown himself unworthy of the judicial
robe.
When
the fading sobs of two tearful women finally died down and their copious tears
dried in the numerous hankies that absorbed them what emerges is a figure that
unmistakably exudes the abominable torpedo of marital bonds, a practicing
deceiver and a merciless pervert whose face is unrecognizable as he is hooded
with a judicial robe that helps conceal his dark side. His family, wife and children may have all
been innocently kept away from knowing this dark side and to spare them from
the afflictive and crushing humiliation of having a husband and father of such
a character, may the foregoing description be a “for your eyes only” to the
members of the highest court and the court administrator.
Thus, Investigating Justice Dy-Liacco
Flores recommended:
This
finding is made with full awareness of the recent Supreme Court ruling on
quantum of evidence required in the cases at bench. In the
x x x. In administrative or disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint rests on the complainant. While substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit different where the proceedings involve judges charged with grave offense. Administrative proceedings against judges are, by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges or to establish the ground/s for the removal of a judicial officer should thus be more than substantial; they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. To borrow from Reyes v. Mangino:
Inasmuch as what is imputed against respondent Judge connotes a misconduct so grave that, if proven, would entail dismissal from the bench, the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial.
It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The evidence adduced here overwhelmingly established moral certainty that respondent judge raped and sexually harassed complainant Mesdames Tan and Villafranca on separate and repeated occasions.
x x x x
Having
found [Judge Pacuribot] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses of rape
and repeated sexual harassments, the penalty of dismissal from service with
forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits is hereby
recommended.[11]
We agree in the recommendation of the
Investigating Justice.
We have reviewed the record of this case
and are thereby satisfied that the findings and recommendations of the
Investigating Justice are in truth adequately supported by the evidence and are
in accord with applicable legal principles. We
therefore resolve to adopt such findings and recommendations relative to the
administrative liability of the respondent judge for grave misconduct and
immorality.
The integrity of the Judiciary rests not
only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice, but also upon the
perception and confidence of the community that the people who run the system
have administered justice. At times, the
strict manner by which we apply the law may, in fact, do justice but may not necessarily
create confidence among the people that justice, indeed, has been served. Hence, in order to create such confidence,
the people who run the judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not
only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law,
but more importantly, they must possess the highest integrity, probity, and
unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public and in their private
lives. Only then can the people be
reassured that the wheels of justice in this country run with fairness and
equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial system.
With the avowed objective of promoting confidence in the
Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct has the following provisions:
Canon I
Rule 1.01: A Judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence.
Canon
II
Rule 2.00: A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all activities.
Rule
2.01: A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
We have repeatedly reminded members of the
Judiciary to so conduct themselves as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and to
be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only
in the discharge of their official
duties but also in their everyday lives. For no position exacts a greater demand on the
moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary.
Judges are mandated to maintain good
moral character and are at all times expected to observe irreproachable
behavior so as not to outrage public decency.
We have adhered to and set forth the exacting standards of morality and
decency, which every member of the judiciary must observe.[12] A magistrate is judged not only by his
official acts but also by his private morals, to the extent that such private
morals are externalized.[13]
He should not only possess proficiency in law but should likewise possess moral
integrity for the people look up to him as a virtuous and upright man.
We explained the rationale for
requiring judges to possess impeccable moral integrity, thus:
The
personal and official actuations of every member of the Bench must be beyond
reproach and above suspicion. The faith and confidence of the public in the
administration of justice cannot be maintained if a judge
who dispenses it is not equipped with the cardinal judicial virtue of moral
integrity, and if he obtusely continues to commit an affront to public decency.
In fact, moral integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity in the
judiciary.[14]
We also stressed in Castillo v. Calanog, Jr.[15]
that:
The code of
Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be
free of [even] a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance
of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a
private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is
also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge,
in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. As we have very recently
explained, a judge’s official life can not simply be detached or separated from
his personal experience. Thus:
Being the subject of constant
public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
A judge
should personify integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal
behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private
life should be above suspicion.”
Judge Pacuribot miserably failed to
measure up to these exacting standards.
He behaved in a manner unbecoming a judge and model of
moral uprightness. He betrayed the
people's high expectations and diminished the esteem in which they hold the Judiciary
in general.
It is well
settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Substantial
evidence is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[16]
In the cases at bar, the complainants
Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca were able to adequately substantiate their allegations.
We find totally unacceptable the temerity
of Judge Pacuribot in subjecting the complainants, both his subordinates, to his
unwelcome sexual advances and acts of lasciviousness. Over long periods of time, he persistently solicited sexual favors from Ms.Tan
and Ms. Villafranca. When they refused,
he made their working conditions so unbearable that Ms. Tan was eventually
forced to transfer to another office and Ms. Villafranca to seek employment
abroad. Certainly, no judge has a right
to solicit sexual favors from any court employee, even from a woman of loose
morals.[17] Judge Pacuribot’s conduct
indubitably bears the marks of impropriety and immorality. Not only do
his actions fall short of the exacting standards for members of the judiciary;
they stand no chance of satisfying the standards of decency even of society at
large. His severely abusive and
outrageous acts, which are an affront to women, unmistakably constitute sexual
harassment because they necessarily “x x x result in an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive environment for the employee[s].”[18]
We need not detail again all the lewd and
lustful acts committed by Judge Pacuribot in order to conclude that
he is indeed unworthy to remain in office.
The narration of the Investigating Justice was sufficiently thorough and
complete. The audacity under which the sexual
violation of the complainants were committed and the seeming impunity with
which they were perpetrated by Judge Pacuribot
shock our sense of morality.
All roads lead us to the conclusion that Judge
Pacuribot has
failed to behave in a manner that will promote confidence in the Judiciary. His actuations, if condoned, would damage the
integrity of the Judiciary, fomenting distrust in the system. Hence, his acts deserve no less than the
severest form of disciplinary sanction -- dismissal from the service.
On his part, Judge Pacuribot put up the
defense of denial, attributing ill feelings and bad motives to Ms. Tan and Ms.
Villafranca.
Already beyond cavil is the evidentiary
rule that mere denial does not overturn the relative weight and probative value
of an affirmative assertion. Denial is
inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by
strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving
and is with no evidentiary value. Like the defense of alibi, denial
crumbles in the light of positive declarations.[19] Denial cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the witnesses who had no ill motive to testify
falsely. Moreover, in the case at bar, there is utter
lack of basis to sustain the purported ill motives attributed by Judge
Pacuribot to the complainants. The Investigating Justice correctly
disregarded Judge Pacuribot’s imputation. No married woman would cry sexual assault,
subject herself and her family to public scrutiny and humiliation, and strain
her marriage in order to perpetrate a falsehood.[20] The only plausible and satisfactory explanation for us is that the charges
against respondent are true.
Judge Pacuribot and his witnesses failed to overcome
the evidence presented by the complainants.
Let it be remembered that respondent has
moral ascendancy and authority over complainants, who are mere employees of the
court of which he is an officer. His actuations
are aggravated by the fact that complainants are his subordinates over whom he
exercises control and supervision, he being the executive judge. He took advantage of his position and power
in order to carry out his lustful and lascivious desires. Instead of acting in loco parentis over his subordinate employees, he was even
the one who preyed on them, taking advantage of his superior position.[21]
In sum, we concur with
the Investigating Justice in holding that complainants were able to muster the
requisite quantum of evidence to prove their charges against Judge
Pacuribot. By having sexual intercourse with Ms Tan and Ms. Villafranca, his
subordinates, respondent violated the trust reposed on his
high office and completely failed to live up to the noble ideals and strict
standards of morality required of members of the Judiciary.
Having tarnished the image of the
Judiciary, we hold, without any hesitation, that Judge Pacuribot be meted out
the severest form of disciplinary sanction - dismissal from the service for the
charges of sexual harassment against him.
We, however, find
the complaints of the Anonymous Letter Writers without merit. Beyond the
bare allegations that Judge Pacuribot maintained an illicit relationship with a
certain Sheryl Gamulo and fathered two children with her, there is nothing in
the records that would indicate that he, indeed, committed the crime
charged. We have stressed time and
again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence. Mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[22] The letter dated
All those who don the judicial robe must always
instill in their minds the exhortation that “[T]he administration of justice is
a mission. Judges, from the lowest to
the highest levels are the gems in the vast government bureaucracy, beacon
lights looked upon as the embodiments of all that is right, just and proper,
the ultimate weapons against injustice and oppression. The Judiciary hemorrhages every time a Judge
himself transgresses the very law he is sworn to uphold and defend at all
costs. This should not come to pass.”[23]
WHEREFORE, Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot is hereby DISMISSED from the service for gross
misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interests of the service,
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment
in any branch of the government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations, except the money value of accrued earned leave credits.
Respondent judge is hereby ORDERED
to cease and desist immediately from rendering any order or decision; or from continuing
any proceedings, in any case whatsoever, effective upon receipt of a copy of
this Decision. Lastly, respondent judge is REQUIRED
to SHOW CAUSE why he should not
be disbarred as a member of the Philippine Bar.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished
the Department of Justice for appropriate action.
This Decision is immediately executory. The
Office of the Court Administrator shall see to it that a copy of this
resolution be immediately served on respondent.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-13.
[2] Id.
at 330-331.
[3] Id.
at 303.
[4] Id.
at 475.
[5] Id.
at 1-6.
[6]
[7] Id.
at 14-23.
[8]
CA rollo, pp. 1-86.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 124-154.
[10]
CA rollo, p. 44.
[11]
[12] Sicat
v. Alcantara, A.M. No. R-6-RTJ,
[13]
Junio v. Rivera, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-91-565,
[14] Dy
Teban Hardware and Auto Supply Co. v. Tapucar, A.M. No. 2300-CFI, 31
January 1981, 102 SCRA 493, 504.
[15] A.M. No. RTJ-90-447,
[16]
Jugueta v. Estacio, A.M. No. CA-04-17-P,
[17]
Madredijo v. Loyao, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-98-1424,
[18]
Dawa v. De Asa, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1144,
[19]
Jugueta v. Estacio, supra note 16 at 16.
[20]
Simbajon v. Esteban, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162,
[21]
Talens-Dabon v. Judge Arceo, 328 Phil. 692, 708 (1996).
[22] Nedia
v. Laviña, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1957.
[23] Employees
of the RTC of