100%(1)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
771 tayangan3 halaman
The document summarizes a case involving a complaint filed against Atty. Mendoza for grossly immoral conduct. Complainants alleged that Mendoza openly cohabited and had two children with his paramour despite being married. They offered birth certificates as evidence. Witnesses testified that copies of the birth certificates were handed to them by a concerned citizen. Mendoza argued the birth certificates were inadmissible. The IBP indefinitely suspended Mendoza. The court ruled the birth certificates were admissible evidence as they were relevant public documents not excluded by law or rules of evidence. The certificates proved Mendoza fathered two children with his paramour while married to another woman.
The document summarizes a case involving a complaint filed against Atty. Mendoza for grossly immoral conduct. Complainants alleged that Mendoza openly cohabited and had two children with his paramour despite being married. They offered birth certificates as evidence. Witnesses testified that copies of the birth certificates were handed to them by a concerned citizen. Mendoza argued the birth certificates were inadmissible. The IBP indefinitely suspended Mendoza. The court ruled the birth certificates were admissible evidence as they were relevant public documents not excluded by law or rules of evidence. The certificates proved Mendoza fathered two children with his paramour while married to another woman.
The document summarizes a case involving a complaint filed against Atty. Mendoza for grossly immoral conduct. Complainants alleged that Mendoza openly cohabited and had two children with his paramour despite being married. They offered birth certificates as evidence. Witnesses testified that copies of the birth certificates were handed to them by a concerned citizen. Mendoza argued the birth certificates were inadmissible. The IBP indefinitely suspended Mendoza. The court ruled the birth certificates were admissible evidence as they were relevant public documents not excluded by law or rules of evidence. The certificates proved Mendoza fathered two children with his paramour while married to another woman.
Tolentino v Mendoza so someone unknown to him just handed to their A.C. 5151 | Oct 19, 2004 | Austria-Martinez maid copies of the birth certificates of Mara Khrisna GENERAL PROVISIONS Charmina and Myrra Khrisna Normina. Admissibility of birth certificates FACTS Witness for complainant Laygo testified that he was Tolentino et. al file a complaint for grossly immoral not the one who procured the certified true copies of conduct against Atty. Mendoza. the birth certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela A complaint was filed by Tolentino, Laygo, Lumalang, Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Evangelista, Sr., and Melgar against Atty. Mendoza for Fuente Mendoza, as somebody just gave said Grossly Immoral Conduct and Gross Misconduct. documents to Nelson Melgar. He was a municipal councilor in 1995 when the letter of a concerned Mendoza, MTC judge, allegedly cohabited openly and citizen regarding Mendoza’s immorality was sent to publicly as husband and wife with his paramour Melgar, but he did not take any action against (Marilyn) and fathered two children with her Mendoza at that time. despite being married to Felicitas. Birth certificates were offered to prove that the two children were Mendoza alleges that the complaint is ill-motivated sired out of cohabitation with the paramour. and the birth certificates are inadmissible for being Witnesses for complainants, Nelson Melgar and Laygo, procured in violation of Rule 24, AO No. 1. submitted their affidavits as their direct testimony and Mendoza filed his Comment wherein he states that were subjected to cross-examination by Mendoza's complainants, who are his political opponents in Naujan, counsel. (Breeze through full testimonies in Annex) Oriental Mindoro, are merely filing this case to exact revenge on him for his filing of criminal charges Complainants allege in their Affidavit-Complaint that against them for falsification; complainants illegally Mendoza, a former Municipal Trial Court Judge, procured copies of the birth certificates of Mara abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in favor of Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra his paramour, Marilyn dela Fuente, who is, in turn, Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza, in violation married to one Ramon G. Marcos; Mendoza and Marilyn of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, dela Fuente have been cohabiting openly and publicly as thus, such documents are inadmissible in evidence; husband and wife in Brgy. Estrella, Naujan, Oriental Mendoza did not participate in the preparation and Mindoro; Mendoza had fathered two children by his submission with the local civil registry of subject birth paramour Marilyn dela Fuente; Mendoza and Marilyn certificates; Mendoza never declared that he had two dela Fuente declared in the birth certificates of their wives, as he has always declared that he is separated in two daughters that they were married on May 12, fact from his wife, Felicitas. 1986, making it appear that their two children are legitimate, while in Mendoza’s Certificate of Complainants formally offered evidence. Candidacy filed with the COMELEC during the 1995 Complainants then formally offered documentary elections, Mendoza declared that his wife is Felicitas evidence consisting of photocopies which were admitted V. Valderia; in Mendoza’s certificate of candidacy for the by Mendoza's counsel to be faithful reproductions of the 1998 elections, he declared his civil status as separated; originals or certified true copies thereof, to wit: 1. a letter of one Luis Bermudez informing Nelson Melgar of Mendoza's such declarations in the birth certificates of his children immoral acts, and in his certificate of candidacy are acts constituting 2. the Certification of the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the celebration of the marriage between Mendoza and one Felicitas Valderia, falsification of public documents; and Mendoza’s acts 3. the Birth Certificate of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza betray his lack of good moral character and constitute 4. the Birth Certificate of Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza, 5. the Certificate of Candidacy of Mendoza dated March 9, 1995 grounds for his removal as a member of the bar. 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 The birth certificates which were offered to show 8. the editorial page of the Naujanews (February–March 1999 issue), that Mendoza sired the children namely Mara Khrisna wherein it was stated that Mendoza has two daughters with his wife, Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Marilyn dela Fuente.
Normina dela Fuente Mendoza out of his cohabitation
Mendoza did not present evidence arguing the with Marilyn dela Fuente. testimonies are hearsay and doc evid have no probative weight. Laygo and Melgar testified that the birth certificates Mendoza, on the other hand, opted not to present any were just given to Melgar (former Mayor of Naujan) evidence and merely submitted a memorandum via his maid by a concerned citizen who reported expounding on his arguments that the testimonies of Mendoza’s immorality. complainants' witnesses are mere hearsay, thus, said On re-direct examination, witness Melgar (former testimonies and their documentary evidence have no Mayor of Naujan) testified that there were people who probative weight. 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 (179.1)REM REV (EVID) || RULE 128 ||AG 2 of 3 IBP indefinitely suspended Mendoza. records as evidence against Mendoza, the protection IBP passed a resolution ruling that considering against unreasonable searches and seizures does not Mendoza's violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of apply. Professional Responsibility, Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza is hereby SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of of law until he submits satisfactory proof that he is no 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide longer cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife and for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certicates has abandoned such immoral course of conduct. in question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into ISSUE: W/N the birth certificates are admissible in consideration in the resolution of this administrative evidence (YES) case against Mendoza.
HELD The facts in the birth certificates and Mendoza’s COC
prove that Mendoza fathered two children by Marily When evidence is admissible despite being legally married to Felicitas. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence Verily, the facts stated in the birth certificates of Mara provides that "evidence is admissible when it is Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza and Mendoza's these rules." Certicate of Candidacy dated March 9, 1995 wherein Mendoza himself declared he was married to Felicitas It is wrong to argue that the birth certificates are Valderia, were never denied nor rebutted by Mendoza. inadmissible for being in violation of Rule 24 of AO Hence, said public documents sufficiently prove that he 1. fathered two children by Marilyn dela Fuente despite the Mendoza mistakenly argues that the birth certificates of fact that he was still legally married to Felicitas Valderia Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra at that time. Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza born on June 16, 1988 and May 22, 1990, respectively, to Norberto Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a Mendoza and Marilyn Dela Fuente, are inadmissible in conduct way below the standards of morality evidence for having been obtained in violation of Rule required of every lawyer. 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, which A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only provides as follows: required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also behave himself as to Rule 24. Non-Disclosure of Birth Records. — avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that (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 he is outing those moral standards and, thus, ruled that following: siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a 1. the concerned person himself, or any person authorized by him; 2. the court or proper public official whenever absolutely necessary in conduct way below the standards of morality required administrative, judicial or other official proceedings to determine of every lawyer. 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. DISPOSITIVE (2) Any person violating the prohibition shall suffer the penalty of WHEREFORE, Mendoza Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza is 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. hereby found GUILTY of immorality, in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is The birth certificates are relevant to the issue. SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law until he submits satisfactory proof that he has The Rules of Evidence and the AO 1 do not provide abandoned his immoral course of conduct. for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates, thus admissible. ANNEX I: TESTIMONIES Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of Witness Nelson B. Melgar declares in his affidavit as 1993 only provides for sanctions against persons follows: He knows Mendoza for they both reside in violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. Mendoza is known as a but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth practicing lawyer and a former Municipal Trial Court records in violation of said rule would render said Judge. Mendoza has been cohabiting openly and publicly records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, with Marilyn dela Fuente, representing themselves to be the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the husband and wife, and from their cohabitation, they exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of produced two children, namely, Mara Khrisna Charmina illegal searches and seizures. It should be emphasized, dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela however, that said rule against unreasonable searches Fuente Mendoza. Sometime in 1995, he (witness Melgar) and seizures is meant only to protect a person from received a letter from a concerned citizen, informing interference by the government or the state. him that Mendoza was married to Felicitas Valderia Consequently, in this case where complainants, as of San Rafael, Bulacan, on January 16, 1980, but private individuals, obtained the subject birth Mendoza abandoned his wife to cohabit with CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE (179.1)REM REV (EVID) || RULE 128 ||AG 3 of 3 Marilyn dela Fuente. Attached to the letter was a ANNEX 2: OTHER RULINGS photocopy of a Certification issued by the Civil Register attesting to the marriage between Mendoza and Melgar’s testimony corroborated by news article Felicitas Valderia. He also received information from stating that Mendoza blessed with 2 children with concerned citizens that Marilyn dela Fuente is also his wife Marilyn. legally married to one Ramon G. Marcos, as evidenced Witness Melgar's testimony that Mendoza had been by a Certification from the Office of the Civil Register. publicly introducing Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife is Mendoza stated in his Certificate of Candidacy filed corroborated by the contents of an article in the with the COMELEC in 1995 that he is still legally Naujanews, introducing Mendoza as one of Naujan's married to Felicitas Valderia. In Mendoza's public servants, and stating therein that Mendoza has Certificate of Candidacy filed with the COMELEC in been blessed with two beautiful children with his wife, 1998, he declared his civil status as separated. Marilyn dela Fuente. It should be noted that said Mendoza has represented to all that he is married to publication is under the control of Mendoza, he Marilyn dela Fuente. In the Naujanews, a local being the Chairman of the Board thereof. Thus, it newspaper where Mendoza holds the position of could be reasonably concluded that if he contested the Chairman of the Board of the Editorial Staff, Mendoza truth of the contents of subject article in the was reported by said newspaper as husband to Naujanews, or if he did not wish to publicly present Marilyn dela Fuente and the father of Mara Khrisna Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife, he could have easily Charmina and Myrra Khrisna Normina. ordered that the damning portions of said article to be edited out. On cross-examination, witness Melgar testified as follows: He was the former mayor of Naujan and he Even if motivated by revenge, credibility of and Mendoza belong to warring political parties. It complainants cannot be disputed as their was not Mendoza who told him about the alleged testimonies are fully supported by doc evidence. immoral conduct subject of the present case. Although With regard to Mendoza's argument that the credibility he received the letter of a concerned citizen of witnesses for the complainants is tainted by the fact regarding the immoral conduct of Mendoza as far back that they are motivated by revenge for Mendoza's filing as 1995, he did not immediately file a case for of criminal cases against them, we opine that even if disbarment against Mendoza. It was only after witnesses Melgar and Laygo are so motivated, the Mendoza filed a criminal case for falsification credibility of their testimonies cannot be discounted as against him that he decided to file an administrative they are fully supported and corroborated by case against Mendoza. documentary evidence which speak for themselves. The birth certicates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente On re-direct examination, witness Melgar testified that Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente there were people who were against the open Mendoza born on June 16, 1988 and May 22, 1990, relationship between Mendoza and Marilyn dela Fuente respectively, to Norberto M. Mendoza and Marilyn Dela as Mendoza had been publicly introducing the latter as Fuente; and the Certication from the Oce of the Local his wife despite the fact that they are both still legally Civil Registrar of Bulacan attesting to the existence in its married to other persons, and so someone unknown to records of an entry of a marriage between Mendoza and him just handed to their maid copies of the birth one Felicitas Valderia celebrated on January 16, 1980, certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina and Myrra are public documents and are prima facie evidence of the Khrisna Normina. facts contained therein, as provided for under Article 410 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. 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.