View full case

COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. OSMUNDO M. VILLANUEVA

FACTS:

A complaint for gross immorality was filed against Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva and Heide B. Pacaco. The complaint alleged that Judge Villanueva had a "querida" named Heide B. Pacaco and that they had an illegitimate child named Caesar Anthony P. Villanueva. Judge German Malcampo confirmed the truth of the allegations in his report, but respondents denied the charges and presented a certification stating that Caesar Anthony P. Villanueva was the son of Oscar M. Villanueva and Helen B. Paciente. Witnesses testified for the complainant and respondents. Respondents argued that the authenticity of the birth certificate presented as evidence was doubtful and denied that the signature appearing on the birth certificate was theirs. They claimed that the alleged signatures on the birth certificate were forged and that the child was merely left in Pacaco's care by her second cousin.

Gemma Panagdato alleges that she is the biological mother of the child, Caesar Anthony Pacaco Villanueva, and that Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva is the child's alleged father. Heide Pacaco, who currently lives with the child, denies knowing Helen B. Paciente, the alleged mother of Caesar Anthony. The birth certificate of Caesar Anthony Pacaco Villanueva was presented during the trial, showing his parents as "Haide Pacaco" and "Osmundo Villanueva." The birth certificate contains an Affidavit of Acknowledgment with the alleged signatures of "Osmundo M. Villanueva" and "Heide B. Pacaco." Judge Villanueva denies having a relationship with Heide Pacaco and denies being the father of the child. He claims that the signature on the Affidavit of Acknowledgment is a forgery. Heide Pacaco admits that the signature appears to be hers but does not confirm or deny it, and denies having a child with Judge Villanueva.

The disputed registration of the birth certificate of Ceasar Anthony Pacaco Villanueva is another important fact in this case. The biological mother, Helen Paciente, entrusted the child to Heide Pacaco, who is not related to her. Helen registered the birth certificate after being prompted by Heide, but Heide denies authorship of the signature on the birth certificate. Heide believed the complaint against her and Judge Villanueva is meant to destroy his reputation because of the decisions he has rendered. The Chief Documents Examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation compared the questioned signature on the birth certificate to sample signatures of Judge Villanueva and concluded that they were not written by the same person. The examination revealed significant differences in handwriting characteristics.

ISSUES:

  1. Whose child is Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva?

  2. Are the respondents, Heide Pacaco and Judge Villanueva, the parents of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva?

  3. Whether Exhibit "D" is a valid and admissible evidence to establish the paternity of Judge Villanueva.

  4. Whether Judge Villanueva is the father of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva

  5. Whether Heide Pacaco is the mother of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva

  6. Whether respondent Heide B. Pacaco is guilty of gross immorality.

  7. Whether respondent Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva should be exonerated for lack of evidence against him.

RULING:

  1. No direct evidence has been presented to establish the illicit relationship between the respondents or that they are the parents of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva. However, the existence of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva has been established through testimonies from witnesses and the child's enrollment in school. The only evidence linking the respondents to the child is the certificate of live birth.

  2. No, Exhibit "D" is not a valid and admissible evidence to establish the paternity of Judge Villanueva. While Exhibit "D" is a public document that serves as evidence of the fact of birth of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva, it does not prove that Judge Villanueva is the father even if his name is stated therein as the father. Proof of his paternity must be established by other competent evidence. Additionally, the signature in the space for the "Signature of Father" in Exhibit "D-5" is not Judge Villanueva's signature, as confirmed by the NBI handwriting expert. The absence of Judge Villanueva's signature in Exhibit "D" renders it inadmissible in evidence.

  3. Judge Villanueva is not the father of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva. There is no direct and primary proof showing that he had an illicit affair with Heide Pacaco. The birth certificate presented as evidence against Judge Villanueva is not admissible.

  4. Heide Pacaco is the mother of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva. The signatures she affixed to the birth certificate of her child are admissions of her filiation with him. Judge Villanueva's identification and the testimony of the NBI handwriting expert confirm that the signatures belong to Heide Pacaco.

  5. The Court finds that respondent Heide B. Pacaco is indeed guilty of gross immorality. The defense of mere denial raised by respondent Pacaco is weak and unavailing, especially since she did not submit her questioned signature for examination despite being advised by the investigating judge to do so. It was also confirmed by respondent Judge Villanueva that the signature on the birth certificate belongs to respondent Pacaco, and her failure to counter this testimony further strengthens the evidence against her.

  6. The Court finds that there is lack of evidence against respondent Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva. Therefore, he is exonerated from the charges against him.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Direct evidence is necessary to establish facts or claims in a case.

  • Testimonies from witnesses can be used as evidence to prove the existence of a person.

  • Official documents, such as a certificate of live birth, can be used as evidence to establish certain facts.

  • Public documents executed with the solemnities of law cannot be set aside on light and flimsy evidence.

  • In registration of births, it is not required that the Local Civil Registrar must have personal knowledge of the person registering the birth.

  • The fact that the affidavit of acknowledgment was not sworn to cannot be faulted on the Local Civil Registrar if the alleged father or mother did not appear before her.

  • To establish paternity, other competent evidence must be presented aside from the birth certificate.

  • Birth certificates that are unsigned by the presumed father are incompetent evidence even to prove paternity alone.

  • The act, declaration, or admission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him/her. (Section 26, Rule 132)

  • Having a child out of wedlock, even with an unknown father, is considered gross immorality for an unmarried woman in government service.

  • The signature of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, or by a comparison with other writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.