FELICISIMA SANCHEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. AGUSTIN FABILLARAN, DEPUTY SHERIFF, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR, VIGAN, RESPONDENT.

In a verified letter-complaint filed on January 30, 1976, Felicisima
P. Sanchez charged Agustin F. Fabillaran, Deputy
Sheriff, Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur at Vigan, with immorality.

The complaint alleged that sometime in April 1975, Agustin P. Fabillaran, first cousin of the complainant, had sexual
intercourse with her through force, threat and intimidation; that the
complainant was forced to give up everything due to fear and she could not
resist because she was physically disabled as she was suffering from polio;
that after the sexual act had been consummated, the respondent warned the
complainant not to reveal to anybody what had happened to her, otherwise he
would kill her; that for a while, she kept silent to avoid discredit and dis­honor
to her family; and that, however, because as a con­sequence of the act
committed by the respondent, the complainant gave birth to a baby girl on December 30, 1975, she decided to file a complaint against the
respondent.^[1]

In a third indorsement dated February
24, 1976,^[2]
the respondent denied “vehemently the acts imputed to him” and
alleged that the “complainant framed up a charge” to compel his
father “to relax in his claim over the properties also claimed by the
mother of the complainant”; that said dispute “was already
settled”; and that the “complainant has retracted her statement and
is withdrawing her
charges”.  The respondent attached
as Annex “A” to his comment a sworn letter dated February 20, 1976 addressed to the Chief Justice
allegedly written by the complainant withdrawing the complaint she had filed.^[3]

In her letter dated July
19, 1976, the complainant denied having executed a letter of
desistance.  She said:  “I was surprised of this development as I have not executed any letter of
desistance and the only document shown to me by Mr. and Mrs. Agustin Fabillaran was the affidavit of support they executed in
favor of my child.”^[4]

This Court, in a resolution of October 3, 1977, granted the request of the complainant
that the investigation of this case be conducted in Manila.  The motion for reconsi­deration of the
respondent was denied and Atty. Vicente M. Requilme,
an assistant supervising attorney of this Court, was directed to expedite and
terminate the investigation within the shortest possible number of days in
order to minimize the expenses of the parties.^[5]

The evidence adduced in the investigation established that the
complainant and the respondent are first cousins because the mother of the
complainant is the sister of the father of the respondent; that the complainant
charged the respondent with rape in the Court of First Instance of Vigan; that the respondent was acquitted of the crime of
rape^[6];
that the complainant gave birth to a baby girl on December 30, 1975; and that
in the certificate of live birth, the child was given the name Jaquelin Sanchez Fabillaran and
the informant was the respondent Agustin Fabillaran
who signed said certificate of live
birth.^[7]

The respondent adduced evidence that he did not have any sexual
intercourse with the complainant; that the father of the baby of the
complainant is a certain Luis de la Cruz who testified that the complainant was
his sweet­heart from February 1975 to June 1975; that Luis de la Cruz and the
complainant had sexual intercourse on many occasions; and that the respondent was only convinced by his wife to sign as the father in the certificate of live
birth of Jaquelin Fabillaran because
said wife pitied the complainant.

The most decisive evidence of the complainant that the respondent
is the father of her child is the certificate of live birth, Exhibit
“A”, wherein the respondent signed as the father of the child Jaquelin Sanchez Fabillaran.^[8]
Normally no person will sign a certificate of live birth as the father of the
child if he is not so.  Despite the
denials of the respondent, the weight of the evidence of record is that he is
the father of the child.  The act of
sexual inter­course with the complainant may not be classified as rape but
certainly the manner in which the respondent committed the act is highly
immoral and is sufficient to warrant his dismissal from the service.  The complainant could not move freely because
she had polio.  Moreover, the complainant
and the respondent are cousins within the fourth degree of consanguinity.

To add insult to injury, the respondent presented Luis de la Cruz
to testify that he is the father of the child. 
A cursory examination of the testimony of Luis de la Cruz shows that he
was not a credible witness.  Although he
claimed to have had intimate relations with the complainant from February 1975
to June 1975, he never learned where the complainant was working.  His
excuse was that when he asked the complainant
where she worked, she refused to tell him.  There is no reason at all, if the complainant
was having intimate relations with Luis de la Cruz, why she should not tell him
where she was working.  The act of the
respondent in pre­senting Luis de la Cruz to assume the paternity of the child,
Jaquelin Sanchez Fabillaran,
is reprehensible, to say the least.  It
only aggravates the guilt of the respondent.

Under the circumstances, the respondent has become un­fit to
continue as an employee of the government. 
He should be dismissed from the service.

WHEREFORE, the respondent, Agustin Fabillaran,
is hereby DISMISSED as Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
Sur, at Vigan, and with
forfeiture of all retirement privileges and with prejudice to reinstate­ment in the national and local governments,
as well as, in any government instrumentality or agency including government
owned or controlled corporations.

Let a copy of this decision be attached to his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 1.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 4.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 6.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 17.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 27.

^[6]
Exhibit “3”, Rollo, pp. 55-70.

^[7]
Exhibit “A”, Rollo, p. 33.

^[8]
Ibid., p. 33.