Sentenced to eight years in prison for 62 crimes of sexual abuse of 15 students at a school in Famalicão, the Moral teacher was dismissed by the Ministry of Education.
This is a “fair and proportionate sanction, considering the employee’s degree of guilt, the particular responsibility that falls upon him for the duties performed and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the acts for which he was judicially convicted”says this Friday, March 27th, the ministry supervised by Fernando Alexandre, in response to Lusa. The teacher has already been notified of the minister’s decision and the sanction of dismissal, he is also mentioned.
The Guimarães Court sentenced, in October 2024, the teacher to eight years in prison for crimes of child sexual abuse, who were between 14 and 17 years old. At the time of the events, which occurred between 2014 and 2018, the accused was a teacher of Moral Education and Catholic Religion at Escola Secundária Camilo Castelo Branco, in Famalicão, district of Braga, and a theater teacher.
He was also given an additional penalty of prohibition from exercising, for a period of 10 years, a profession, job, public or private functions or activities, the exercise of which involves regular contact with minors.
When reading the ruling, which the defendant did not attend, claiming illness, the presiding judge said that 62 of the 87 crimes had been proven in the trial, completely rejecting the “cabala” thesis defended by the professor, adding that he was “a master in the art of manipulation and dissimulation”.
According to the panel of judges, the victims presented “absolutely credible, convincing and even moving” testimonies.
“Without signs of vindictive purposes, despite, on the one hand, the undisguised discomfort and hurt that the facts reported (still) caused them and, on the other, the admiration and esteem they confessed to feeling for the defendant and which explains why, throughout the time and until the accusation, they had devalued his behavior and attitudes which, therefore, they all interpreted as ‘normal’ in the theater and without malice on the part of its author”, highlighted the presiding judge.
For the court, “from what little the defendant understood to say in the statement [escrita] who read [em julgamento]it is removed that physical contact – which he admitted existed because it had to exist – was necessary and justified by the training and preparation process of the actors/actresses”.
“It turns out that it was proven that: the classes/rehearsals took place with the lights off, relaxing background music and the door closed; the stage work was carried out in pairs, normally with eyes closed; and the defendant was part of the scene pairing with students, successively and rotating”, explained the judge.
For the group of judges, it was proven that “this entire method implemented by the defendant had no other purpose than to create an environment conducive to and enhancing physical contacts that, progressively, evolved from touching the back and belly” to intimate areas, “in a notorious crescendo” in which the director was “testing” the offended parties.
“The manipulative and dissimulating power of the defendant was exuberantly demonstrated”, stressed the judge, adding that, “for years, protected by a prestige he gained inside and outside the school community, with all his charisma, he attracted ‘O Andaime’ [companhia de teatro] dozens of students, usually the best, who felt happy and fulfilled there”, and that all the students heard, including the offended ones, “talk about the accused as a fantastic teacher and ‘O Adaime’ as a wonderful place”.
The court understood that “the need for resocialization of the accused is very high because, despite having no criminal record, he did not, at any time, show adequate critical judgment regarding the sexual contacts he had with the offended women.”
“Which he never admitted (although he considered the ‘touches’ in theater necessary), for which he never showed regret or remorse, in an unchanged posture of contempt for the victims, without a trace of empathy and totally incapable of reciprocating the affection and admiration that they, despite everything, still devote to him”, he highlights.
The court said that, at the time of the events, the defendant “was an Education and Moral and theater teacher for several years (teaching for over 25 years), father of a young adult, married to a teacher, assuming normal responsibilities, even with public impact (for which he was even honored by the Municipality)”.
Leave a Reply