365 Phil. 12
BUENA, J.:
"3. That, assisted by our private lawyer, we recently conferred with the said two accused about this case and we have realized: (a) that they had no malicious or criminal intent when they made that entry and that Ruby Barcenas innocently did it in the best interest of their said children to avoid future social stigma upon the persons of the said children when they grow up; and (b) that Mr. De Guzman had been separated for many years from his wife, who has likewise been living her own life with a common-law husband in Mindoro; and that his wife and two children with her had expressly condoned and consented to his relationship with Ms. Barcenas many years ago;In his Investigation Report[6] dated November 2, 1994 Acting Executive Judge Alfredo J. Gustilo (now Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan), made the following findings which the Court quotes with approval:
"4. That we are no longer interested to pursue this administrative case and that therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby request the Supreme Court, thru the investigating Executive Judge of Pasay City to dismiss the same."
"Misconduct means intentional wrong doing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, specially by a government official. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary). To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. (Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil. 456) No act of the respondents appears or has been established which can be considered as misconduct in office. The charge of grave misconduct against them is therefore without any basis.The investigating Judge made the following recommendation:
"With respect to the charge of falsification, the complainants allege that the respondents committed the offense when they made, through conspiracy, an entry in the birth certificates of their children that they were married on December 8, 1982, or December 8, 1984, in Davao City, when in fact they were not. Apparently, this accusation is predicated on one of the ways of committing falsification, i.e., by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. One essential element of this kind of falsification is that there must be a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the fact claimed to be false. In other words, there must be a law requiring, expressly or impliedly, the disclosure of the truth of the fact alleged to have been falsified. No law has been shown by the complainants making it either expressly or impliedly a duty of an informant in a record of birth to disclose the truth that the parents of the child covered by it are married or not. Consequently, the charge of falsification against the respondents cannot likewise prosper.
"It is alleged in the complaint that the respondents conspired with each other in making the entry in the birth certificates of their children that they were married. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Art. 8, Revised Penal Code). The rule is that conspiracy should be shown by strong and convincing evidence. No evidence has been adduced in this case indicating that the respondents agreed and decided to make the entry in the birth certificates of their children that they were married. Even on the assumption that such entry in the birth certificates of Nathaniel and Natalia would constitute falsification by making an untruthful statement in a narration of fact, only respondent Barcenas, the informant who made the entry, could be held liable therefor. Respondent De Guzman could not be made to answer for it, since there is no proof that he conspired with his co-respondent in making such entry.
"On the other hand, the circumstances in this case admitted by the respondents are sufficient to sustain the charge of immorality. It is not in accordance with the norms of morality for a man who is legally married to cohabit with another woman during the subsistence of such marriage. In the same manner, it is against the tenets of morality for a woman to be living together with a married man not her husband. The stigma of immorality attaches to this kind of relationship even if the married man is separated from his wife and the woman living with him is single. This is specially so when the persons concerned are public officers who are supposed to maintain a high standard of morality so as to live up to their role to be looked upon as models in society.
"However, to temper justice with mercy, these circumstances may be considered to mitigate the liability of the respondents:
"1. They have voluntarily admitted that they are living together as husband and wife without benefit of marriage.
"2. Respondent De Guzman and his lawful wife have been separated in fact for a long time and his wife is already cohabiting with another man, thereby rendering reconciliation between them improbable.
"3. Notwithstanding their separation, respondent De Guzman has continued giving support to his children with Punzalan.
"4. The relationship between the respondents is one of the realities of life which is difficult to prevent from happening, more so because respondent De Guzman has been separated for a long time from his wife.
"5. Apparently, the lawful wife and legitimate children of respondent De Guzman have tolerated the relationship between the respondents as can be implied from the fact that none of them has filed a complaint against them.
"6. There is no indication that the relationship between the respondents has caused prejudice to any person or has adversely affected the performance of their functions and duties as officers of the government to the detriment of the public service.
"7. The complainants have desisted from further prosecuting their complaint and asked for its dismissal, admitting that the filing of the present charges was an offshoot of a civil case involving complainant Maguad and the respondents."
"1. Respondents Nicolas de Guzman and Ruby Barcenas be exonerated of the charges of grave misconduct and falsification; andThe Court fully agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge that the respondents be absolved from the charges of grave misconduct and falsification, the same being duly supported by the evidence on record and jurisprudence on the matter.
"2. Both respondents be found guilty of the charge of immorality.
"However, because of the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, only the penalty of suspension from office for one (1) month without pay be imposed on them.
"Additionally, the respondents should be admonished to terminate their cohabitation or to take such proper course of action as will legitimize the relationship between them."
"5. That on May 25, 1995, respondent Nicolas de Guzman filed aWHEREFORE, respondents Deputy Sheriff Nicolas de Guzman and Court Social Worker Ruby Barcenas are absolved from the charge of grave misconduct and falsification, but respondent de Guzman is SUSPENDED for two (2) months without pay and respondent Barcenas for fifteen (15) days also without pay, both for immorality.
Petition for Annulment of Marriage before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite;
"6. On August 12, 1998, a Decision was rendered by the Honorable Judge Dolores C. EspaƱol in favor of the respondent;
"7. That on November 27, 1998, Entry of Final Judgment regarding the Annulment of Marriage was issued by the Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court Branch 90, Imus, Cavite; and,
"8. That on October 19, 1998, the respondents had tied their marriage knot before the Honorable Judge Leticia P. Morales of Regional Trial Court, Makati."