Church can’t punish Ejares for ‘inappropriate behavior’

After controversial priest Benedicto Ejares was cleared by the court of charges for acts of lasciviousness, he will also escape any penalty from the Church for acting “inappropriately” towards the students of a local high school.

Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal said inappropriate conduct is different from acts of lasciviousness which is the one penalized under the church protocol.

However, Vidal said Ejares remains suspended from hearing confessions despite the dismissal of the cases for seven counts of acts of lasciviousness against him.

Vidal explained that the church protocol cannot be applied to Ejares because he has not committed lascivious conduct as found by the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office.

“I thank our institution that closed it,” Vidal said.

When asked if Ejares will still be assigned in Cebu after the controversy, Vidal said there is no reason for him to be thrown out. However, he was not certain about the exact whereabouts of Ejares.

He said the last that he heard was that the priest was in Manila.

Ejares was charged with seven counts of acts of lasciviousness for allegedly engaging in lewd conduct while hearing confession at the Abellana National School last year, the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence.

But, even if the case was dismissed, the prosecutor found that the priest’s conduct was inappropriate.  In fact, he said Ejares could have been charged with unjust vexation had the complaint been filed on time.

In a resolution penned after review, Assistant Prosecutor Fernando Gubalane said there was not enough evidence to establish probable cause for the crimes of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act 7610 or the anti-child abuse law and Republic Act 7877 or the anti- sexual harassment act.

Gubalane, adopting en toto the findings of investigating prosecutor Alexander Acosta, cited a ruling of the Supreme Court, which said that the “factual setting, i.e., a schoolroom in the presence of complainant’s students and within hearing distance of her co-teachers, rules out a conclusion that the accused was actuated by a lustful design or purpose or that his conduct was lewd or lascivious.”

He said that the proper case could have been unjust vexation, a light offense punishable by 30 days imprisonment and/or a fine of P5 to P200.

However, the crime was already considered prescribed, as the case against Ejares was filed only on April 11, 2007, approximately six months after the crime was allegedly committed on November 14, 2006. The crime of unjust vexation prescribes after two months. – Fred P. Languido/BRP