(179.
1)REM REV (EVID) || RULE 128 ||AG
Tolentino v Mendoza
A.C. 5151 | Oct 19, 2004 | Austria-Martinez
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Admissibility of birth certificates
FACTS
Tolentino et. al file a complaint for grossly immoral
conduct against Atty. Mendoza.
A complaint was filed by Tolentino, Laygo, Lumalang,
Evangelista, Sr., and Melgar against Atty. Mendoza for
Grossly Immoral Conduct and Gross Misconduct.
Mendoza, MTC judge, allegedly cohabited openly and
publicly as husband and wife with his paramour
(Marilyn) and fathered two children with her
despite being married to Felicitas. Birth certificates
were offered to prove that the two children were
sired out of cohabitation with the paramour.
Witnesses for complainants, Nelson Melgar and Laygo,
submitted their affidavits as their direct testimony and
were subjected to cross-examination by Mendoza's
counsel. (Breeze through full testimonies in Annex)
Complainants allege in their Affidavit-Complaint that
Mendoza, a former Municipal Trial Court Judge,
abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in favor of
his paramour, Marilyn dela Fuente, who is, in turn,
married to one Ramon G. Marcos; Mendoza and Marilyn
dela Fuente have been cohabiting openly and publicly as
husband and wife in Brgy. Estrella, Naujan, Oriental
Mindoro; Mendoza had fathered two children by his
paramour Marilyn dela Fuente; Mendoza and Marilyn
dela Fuente declared in the birth certificates of their
two daughters that they were married on May 12,
1986, making it appear that their two children are
legitimate, while in Mendoza’s Certificate of
Candidacy filed with the COMELEC during the 1995
elections, Mendoza declared that his wife is Felicitas
V. Valderia; in Mendoza’s certificate of candidacy for the
1998 elections, he declared his civil status as separated;
such declarations in the birth certificates of his children
and in his certificate of candidacy are acts constituting
falsification of public documents; and Mendoza’s acts
betray his lack of good moral character and constitute
grounds for his removal as a member of the bar.
The birth certificates which were offered to show
that Mendoza sired the children namely Mara Khrisna
Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna
Normina dela Fuente Mendoza out of his cohabitation
with Marilyn dela Fuente.
Laygo and Melgar testified that the birth certificates
were just given to Melgar (former Mayor of Naujan)
via his maid by a concerned citizen who reported
Mendoza’s immorality.
On re-direct examination, witness Melgar (former
Mayor of Naujan) testified that there were people who
were against the open relationship between Mendoza
and Marilyn dela Fuente as Mendoza had been publicly
introducing the latter as his wife despite the fact that
they are both still legally married to other persons, and
CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE
1 of 3
so someone unknown to him just handed to their
maid copies of the birth certificates of Mara Khrisna
Charmina and Myrra Khrisna Normina.
Witness for complainant Laygo testified that he was
not the one who procured the certified true copies of
the birth certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela
Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela
Fuente Mendoza, as somebody just gave said
documents to Nelson Melgar. He was a municipal
councilor in 1995 when the letter of a concerned
citizen regarding Mendoza’s immorality was sent to
Melgar, but he did not take any action against
Mendoza at that time.
Mendoza alleges that the complaint is ill-motivated
and the birth certificates are inadmissible for being
procured in violation of Rule 24, AO No. 1.
Mendoza filed his Comment wherein he states that
complainants, who are his political opponents in Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro, are merely filing this case to exact
revenge on him for his filing of criminal charges
against them for falsification; complainants illegally
procured copies of the birth certificates of Mara
Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra
Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza, in violation
of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993,
thus, such documents are inadmissible in evidence;
Mendoza did not participate in the preparation and
submission with the local civil registry of subject birth
certificates; Mendoza never declared that he had two
wives, as he has always declared that he is separated in
fact from his wife, Felicitas.
Complainants formally offered evidence.
Complainants then formally offered documentary
evidence consisting of photocopies which were admitted
by Mendoza's counsel to be faithful reproductions of the
originals or certified true copies thereof, to wit:
1. a letter of one Luis Bermudez informing Nelson Melgar of Mendoza's
immoral acts,
2. the Certification of the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the celebration of
the marriage between Mendoza and one Felicitas Valderia,
3. the Birth Certificate of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza
4. the Birth Certificate of Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza,
5. the Certificate of Candidacy of Mendoza dated March 9, 1995
6. the Certificate of Candidacy of Mendoza dated March 25, 1998,
7. Certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Naujan in1998, attesting to the
marriage celebrated between Marilyn dela Fuente and Ramon Marcos, and
8. the editorial page of the Naujanews (February–March 1999 issue),
wherein it was stated that Mendoza has two daughters with his wife,
Marilyn dela Fuente.
Mendoza did not present evidence arguing the
testimonies are hearsay and doc evid have no
probative weight.
Mendoza, on the other hand, opted not to present any
evidence and merely submitted a memorandum
expounding on his arguments that the testimonies of
complainants' witnesses are mere hearsay, thus, said
testimonies and their documentary evidence have no
probative weight.
(179.1)REM REV (EVID) || RULE 128 ||AG
IBP indefinitely suspended Mendoza.
IBP passed a resolution ruling that considering
Mendoza's violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza
is hereby SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice
of law until he submits satisfactory proof that he is no
longer cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife and
has abandoned such immoral course of conduct.
ISSUE: W/N the birth certificates are admissible in
evidence (YES)
HELD
When evidence is admissible
Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
provides that "evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules."
It is wrong to argue that the birth certificates are
inadmissible for being in violation of Rule 24 of AO
1.
Mendoza mistakenly argues that the birth certificates of
Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra
Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza born on June 16,
1988 and May 22, 1990, respectively, to Norberto
Mendoza and Marilyn Dela Fuente, are inadmissible in
evidence for having been obtained in violation of Rule
24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, which
provides as follows:
Rule 24. Non-Disclosure of Birth Records. —
(1) The records of a person's birth shall be kept strictly confidential and no
information relating thereto shall be issued except on the request of any of the
following:
1. the concerned person himself, or any person authorized by him;
2. the court or proper public official whenever absolutely necessary in
administrative, judicial or other official proceedings to determine
the identity of the child's parents or other circumstances
surrounding his birth; and
3. in case of the person's death, the nearest of kin.
(2) Any person violating the prohibition shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of at least two months or a 􏰄ne in an amount not exceeding
five hundred pesos, or both in the discretion of the court.
The birth certificates are relevant to the issue.
The Rules of Evidence and the AO 1 do not provide
for the exclusion from evidence of the birth
certificates, thus admissible.
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 only provides for sanctions against persons
violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records,
but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth
records in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand,
the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the
exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of
illegal searches and seizures. It should be emphasized,
however, that said rule against unreasonable searches
and seizures is meant only to protect a person from
interference by the government or the state.
Consequently, in this case where complainants, as
private individuals, obtained the subject birth
CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE
2 of 3
records as evidence against Mendoza, the protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures does not
apply.
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide
for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certi􏰄cates
in question, said public documents are, therefore,
admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative
case against Mendoza.
The facts in the birth certificates and Mendoza’s COC
prove that Mendoza fathered two children by Marily
despite being legally married to Felicitas.
Verily, the facts stated in the birth certificates of Mara
Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra
Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza and Mendoza's
Certi􏰄cate of Candidacy dated March 9, 1995 wherein
Mendoza himself declared he was married to Felicitas
Valderia, were never denied nor rebutted by Mendoza.
Hence, said public documents sufficiently prove that he
fathered two children by Marilyn dela Fuente despite the
fact that he was still legally married to Felicitas Valderia
at that time.
Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a
conduct way below the standards of morality
required of every lawyer.
A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the
keeping of mistresses but must also behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is 􏰄outing those moral standards and, thus, ruled that
siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a
conduct way below the standards of morality required
of every lawyer.
DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, Mendoza Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza is
hereby found GUILTY of immorality, in violation of Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law
until he submits satisfactory proof that he has
abandoned his immoral course of conduct.
ANNEX I: TESTIMONIES
Witness Nelson B. Melgar declares in his affidavit as
follows: He knows Mendoza for they both reside in
Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. Mendoza is known as a
practicing lawyer and a former Municipal Trial Court
Judge. Mendoza has been cohabiting openly and publicly
with Marilyn dela Fuente, representing themselves to be
husband and wife, and from their cohabitation, they
produced two children, namely, Mara Khrisna Charmina
dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela
Fuente Mendoza. Sometime in 1995, he (witness Melgar)
received a letter from a concerned citizen, informing
him that Mendoza was married to Felicitas Valderia
of San Rafael, Bulacan, on January 16, 1980, but
Mendoza abandoned his wife to cohabit with
(179.1)REM REV (EVID) || RULE 128 ||AG
Marilyn dela Fuente. Attached to the letter was a
photocopy of a Certification issued by the Civil Register
attesting to the marriage between Mendoza and
Felicitas Valderia. He also received information from
concerned citizens that Marilyn dela Fuente is also
legally married to one Ramon G. Marcos, as evidenced
by a Certification from the Office of the Civil Register.
Mendoza stated in his Certificate of Candidacy filed
with the COMELEC in 1995 that he is still legally
married to Felicitas Valderia. In Mendoza's
Certificate of Candidacy filed with the COMELEC in
1998, he declared his civil status as separated.
Mendoza has represented to all that he is married to
Marilyn dela Fuente. In the Naujanews, a local
newspaper where Mendoza holds the position of
Chairman of the Board of the Editorial Staff, Mendoza
was reported by said newspaper as husband to
Marilyn dela Fuente and the father of Mara Khrisna
Charmina and Myrra Khrisna Normina.
On cross-examination, witness Melgar testified as
follows: He was the former mayor of Naujan and he
and Mendoza belong to warring political parties. It
was not Mendoza who told him about the alleged
immoral conduct subject of the present case. Although
he received the letter of a concerned citizen
regarding the immoral conduct of Mendoza as far back
as 1995, he did not immediately file a case for
disbarment against Mendoza. It was only after
Mendoza filed a criminal case for falsification
against him that he decided to file an administrative
case against Mendoza.
On re-direct examination, witness Melgar testified that
there were people who were against the open
relationship between Mendoza and Marilyn dela Fuente
as Mendoza had been publicly introducing the latter as
his wife despite the fact that they are both still legally
married to other persons, and so someone unknown to
him just handed to their maid copies of the birth
certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina and Myrra
Khrisna Normina.
The affidavit of Mr. Laygo, which was adopted as his
direct testimony, is practically identical to that of
witness Melgar. On cross-examination, witness Laygo
testified that he was not the one who procured the
certified true copies of the birth certificates of Mara
Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra
Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza, as somebody
just gave said documents to Nelson Melgar. He was a
municipal councilor in 1995 when the letter of a
concerned citizen regarding Mendoza's immorality
was sent to Melgar, but he did not take any action
against Mendoza at that time.
CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE
3 of 3
ANNEX 2: OTHER RULINGS
Melgar’s testimony corroborated by news article
stating that Mendoza blessed with 2 children with
his wife Marilyn.
Witness Melgar's testimony that Mendoza had been
publicly introducing Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife is
corroborated by the contents of an article in the
Naujanews, introducing Mendoza as one of Naujan's
public servants, and stating therein that Mendoza has
been blessed with two beautiful children with his wife,
Marilyn dela Fuente. It should be noted that said
publication is under the control of Mendoza, he
being the Chairman of the Board thereof. Thus, it
could be reasonably concluded that if he contested the
truth of the contents of subject article in the
Naujanews, or if he did not wish to publicly present
Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife, he could have easily
ordered that the damning portions of said article to
be edited out.
Even if motivated by revenge, credibility of
complainants cannot be disputed as their
testimonies are fully supported by doc evidence.
With regard to Mendoza's argument that the credibility
of witnesses for the complainants is tainted by the fact
that they are motivated by revenge for Mendoza's 􏰄filing
of criminal cases against them, we opine that even if
witnesses Melgar and Laygo are so motivated, the
credibility of their testimonies cannot be discounted as
they are fully supported and corroborated by
documentary evidence which speak for themselves. The
birth certi􏰄cates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente
Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente
Mendoza born on June 16, 1988 and May 22, 1990,
respectively, to Norberto M. Mendoza and Marilyn Dela
Fuente; and the Certi􏰄cation from the O􏰄ce of the Local
Civil Registrar of Bulacan attesting to the existence in its
records of an entry of a marriage between Mendoza and
one Felicitas Valderia celebrated on January 16, 1980,
are public documents and are prima facie evidence of the
facts contained therein, as provided for under Article
410 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.