EVIDENCE 1

Competence – Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution

TOLENTINO v. MENDOZA
October 19, 2004 | J. Austria-Martinez

Complainant(s): Pedro G. Tolentino, Romeo M. Laygo, Solomon M. Lumalang, Sr., Meliton D.

Doctrine: 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.
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.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): Ginamit birth cert ng mga anak sa labas para i-prove ang gross immorality
FACTS: Complainants alleged that Mendoza is guilty of gross immorality for cohabiting and having
children with a woman not his wife while he is still in a subsisting marriage. Among the pieces of evidence
submitted by complainants were the birth certificates of Mendoza’s children with his paramour. Mendoza
argued that these birth certs should be inadmissible in evidence because they were obtained in violation
of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, which punishes any person violating the rule on
confidentiality of birth records.
HELD: The Court held that the birth certificates were admissible because the said rule in the
administrative order merely imposes punishment on violators of the same, but nowhere was it stated that
the documents acquired should be inadmissible. The Court also said that 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. However said rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is meant only to
protect a person from interference by the government or the state, thus, it cannot be invoked in this case
against the private complainants. The Court ultimately upheld the finding of the IBP that Mendoza is guilty
of gross immorality and should therefore be suspended.

FACTS
● Complainants filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Norberto Mendoza for grossly immoral
conduct and gross misconduct.
○ According to the complainants, Norberto abandoned his legal wife (Felicitas) in favor of
his paramour, Marilyn dela Fuente. Norberto cohabited with Marilyn openly and publicly
and they eventually had 2 daughters, Mara and Myrra. These betray his lack of good
moral character and constitute grounds for being disbarred.
● Among the pieces of evidence submitted by the complainants were the birth certificates of Mara
and Myrra where Norberto and Marilyn were indicated as having been married since May 12,
1986.
○ Other pieces of evidence were the certificates of candidacy filed by Norberto for the 1995
and 1998 elections which showed that his wife is Felicitas Valderia (in the 1998 COC,
they were indicated as separated)
● In response, Norberto alleged that the case was merely filed in order to exact revenge against
him as he had filed criminal charges against the complainants who were also his political
opponents. Norberto also argued that the birth certificates of Marra and Myrra should not
be admissible in evidence because the same were acquired in violation of Administrative

Orjalo | A2022
September 12, 2020
EVIDENCE 2
Competence – Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution

Order No. 1, series of 19931 which penalizes disclosure of birth records without authorization or
request from certain specified individuals.
● The administrative case was referred to the IBP. During the hearings of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP, complainants Melgar and Laygo testified about Norberto and Marilyn’s open
and public cohabitation as husband and wife.
○ According to Melgar, he was able to receive a letter from a concerned citizen informing
him of Norberto’s marriage with Felicitas (the legal wife) and the former’s subsequent
abandonment of such marriage on January 16, 1980. He also received information that
Marilyn (the paramour) was also a married with a man other than Norberto. Melgar added
that in an article by Naujanews, a local newspaper to which Norberto holds the position of
Chairman of the Board of the Editorial Staff, it was reported that Norberto’s wife was
Marilyn and had 2 daughter with her, Mara and Myrra.
○ Melgar also testified that there really are people who are against the relationship between
Norberto and his paramour so someone unknown to him handed the copies of the birth
certs to his maids which was then given to him.
○ Laygo’s testimony was practically identical with that of Melgar.
● The complainants formally offered the documentary evidence in this case, including the birth
certificates, COCs, certification by the Local Civil Registrar of Norberto’s marriage with his legal
wife (Felicitas) and the Naujanews article.
● Respondent merely insisted before the IBP that the evidence offered were merely hearsay and
the birth certificates were inadmissible for being acquired in violation of the abovementioned
administrative order.
○ This ultimately led the IBP to find that the allegations were substantially proven and thus,
Norberto should be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law (until he submits proof
that he is no longer cohabiting with a woman other than his legal wife).
■ The satetments of the witnesses under oath remained unrebutted; exclusionary
rules would not make the birth certs inadmissible because the administrative
order did not state that the document illegally obtained would be inadmissible.
ISSUES + HELD
[MAIN] ISSUE #1: W/N Mara and Myrra’s birth certificates are inadmissible in evidence for being
acquired in violation of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 – NO
 The Court held that respondent Norberto is mistaken when he argued that the birth certs should
be inadmissible in light of the said administrative order.
 Sec. 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." In this case, there is no
doubt about the relevance of the birth certificates. However, the question is on whether the law
makes the said documents inadmissible. The Court held in the negative because:
o 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
o 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.

1
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:
A. the concerned person himself, or any person authorized by him;
b. 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
c. 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 fine in an amount not
exceeding five hundred pesos, or both in the discretion of the court. (Article 7, P.D. 603)

Orjalo | A2022
September 12, 2020
EVIDENCE 3
Competence – Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution

 In this case where complainants, as private individuals, obtained the subject birth
records as evidence against respondent, 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 certificates in question, said
public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in
the resolution of this administrative case against respondent

ISSUE #2: W/N respondent is guilty of immorality which merits his suspension from the practice
of law – YES
 The evidence presented by complainants reach that quantum of evidence required in
administrative proceedings which is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conviction.
o The birth certs and Naujanews article which prove that he cohabited and fathered 2
children from a woman not his wife; and the certification of the Local Civil Registrar
regarding his marriage with Felicitas (legal wife) and the COCs which prove the same
marriage, remained uncontroverted.
o Even assuming that the complainants were merely motivated to testify against Norberto
because the latter filed criminal charges against the former, the fact remains that the
testimonies were supported and corroborated by documentary evidence which speak for
themselves. The Certification of the Office of the Civil Registrar of Bulacan and the birth
certs are public documents and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein as
provided for under Art. 410, Civil Code.
 The fact that respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit with a woman who is not his
legal wife, thus, siring children by her, shows his lack of good moral character. Respondent
should keep in mind that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain
one's good standing in the legal profession.

RULING: The birth certificates are admissible. Atty. Norberto Mendoza is guilty of immorality and should
be suspended indefinitely.

Orjalo | A2022
September 12, 2020