*

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1552. May 31, 2000.

(Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 99-662-RTJ)

MARLAN YOUNG, complainant, vs. JUDGE HILARIO I.

MAPAYO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Digos, Davao del Sur,
respondent.

Courts; Judges; Administrative Investigations; Desistance; Mere

desistance on the part of the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of
administrative complaints against members of the bench.— Complainant
later executed an affidavit withdrawing his complaint against respondent.
However, such withdrawal will not result in the dismissal of the complaint.
In Marcelino vs. Judge Singson, Jr., we ruled: ‘The Court has held in a
number of instances that mere desis-tance on the part of complainant does
not warrant the dismissal of administrative complaints against members of
the bench. The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its
jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of the charges
made and to discipline, such as the results of its investigation may warrant,
an erring respondent. The Court’s interest in the affairs of the judiciary is a
paramount concern that must not know bounds.”

Evidence; Bureau of Immigration Records; It cannot be known for

certain that a person who had a birth date of 01/20/1942 and who left the
Philippines on 16 March 1993 was the same person with the same name
who arrived on 6 October 1993 where his indicated birth date is
06/20/1942.—The above evidence are of dubious value in proving that
complainant was indeed out of the Philippines at the time the marriage was
celebrated on June 9, 1993. With respect to the first piece of evidence, the
certification from the Bureau of Immigration, Justice Salazar-Fernando
found: “The first document (a) shows that Marlan W. Young who departed
Manila on March 16, 1993 had a different date of birth as against the Marlan
W. Young who arrived in Manila on October 6, 1993, left Manila on
October 29, 1993 and arrived in Manila on February 8, 1994. Could it be
typographical error in the entry as the representative of BI assumed it to be?
“The second document (b) does not show details other than the name of the
passenger, flight number, date of entry/departure and airline. Had it included
other details like the date of birth, the prob-

______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

290

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Mapayo

ability of a typographical error in the first document (a) could be verified.”

Under such circumstances, it cannot be known for certain that the Marlan
W. Young, who had a birth date of 01/20/1942 and who left the Philippines
on March 16, 1993 was the same Marlan W. Young who arrived on October
6, 1993 and who had a birth date of 06/20/1942. The uncertainty in this
regard is compounded by the admission of Manolito Macanas of the Bureau
of Immigration that only the records for the flights coming in and out of the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and Mactan Airport in Cebu
are computerized. It thus cannot be verified if complainant entered the
country through a port other than the above-mentioned airports.

Same; Marriages; Marriage Contracts; Pleadings and Practice;

Admissions; Where a person stated in his petition for annulment of
marriage that the marriage took place on June 9, 1993, he is bound by such
admission and he may not belie the same by alleging in his complaint
against a judge that the latter indicated in the marriage contract said date
when the former was allegedly out of the country.— Another factor that
militates against complainant’s cause is the fact that in his petition for
annulment of marriage, he stated that the marriage took place on June 9,
1993, which he belies in his allegation in his complaint against respondent
Judge that he was out of the country at that time. Clearly, he is bound by
such admission.

Same; Same; It is difficult to see how a marriage could be celebrated

on 15 March 1993 when the documents necessary for its validity were
available only months later; It is well-settled that entries in official records
made in the performance of a duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.—The allegation of
complainant that the marriage was actually celebrated on March 15, 1993 is
belied by the documents supporting the application for marriage such as the
Affidavit in Lieu of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage for American
Citizens of complainant, issued on May 19, 1993, and Pre-Marriage
Counseling dated May 25, 1993. In particular, the Affidavit in Lieu of
Certificate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage for American Citizens
was subscribed and sworn to before the Consul of the United States on May
19, 1993 by complainant himself. It is difficult to see how a marriage could
be celebrated on March 15, 1993 when the documents necessary for its
validity were available only months later. It is well-settled that entries in
official records made in the perfor-

291

VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 291

Young vs. Mapayo

mance of a duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the

performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Grave

Misconduct.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Pedro S. Castillo for respondent.

PARDO, J.:
1
The case is an administrative complaint for grave misconduct filed
by Marlan Young against Judge Hilario I. Mapayo, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 19, Digos, Davao del Sur. The facts are as follows:
On September 2, 1998, Marlan Young, an American national, and
a resident of Tibagon, Pantukan, Davao, filed with 2the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao an affidavit complaint, charging Judge
Hilario I. Mapayo with grave misconduct. His affidavit complaint
stated, among others things, that:
 1. Respondent performed the marriage between complainant
and Virginia Parba on March 15, 1993;
2. Respondent demanded and received from complainant the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for the
ceremony;
3. Respondent asked complainant and all others involved in
the ceremony to sign six (6) blank copies of the marriage
contract;
4. Respondent at a later date accomplished the forms and
placed therein “Digos” and June 9, 1993 as the place and
date of the solemnization of the marriage, respectively;

_______________

1 Dated September 2, 1998.

2 Rollo, pp. 2-4.

292

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Mapayo

5. Complainant was allegedly out of the country on said date

(June 9, 1993) as his passport would show;
6. Complainant sought the help of respondent who provided
him with a lawyer, Atty. Barba, free of charge, and later
filed a case for annulment of the marriage, but the same had
dragged on for two (2) years with no favorable
development; and
7. Complainant had allegedly good reason to believe that
respondent had been part of a conspiracy since during a
confrontation with respondent and Virginia Parba, they
threatened him with deportation.

On September 29, 1998, the Ombudsman for Mindanao referred

Young’s affidavit-complaint to Court Administrator Alfredo L.
Benipayo. On February 12, 1999, Court Administrator Benipayo
referred the complaint to3 respondent Judge Mapayo for comment.
On March 16, 1999, respondent Judge submitted his comment.
He denied all the allegations of the complaint. In support of his
denial, respondent attached to the affidavit of complainant’s ex-wife,
Virginia Parba, the original copy 4 of the complaint for annulment of
marriage filed by complainant wherein he acknowledged the
validity of his marriage to Virginia Parba, as well as the final
decision on the annulment case. However, the marriage of
complainant and Virginia Parba was 5
later annulled.
The affidavit of Virginia Parba stated that she was married to the
complainant on June 9, 1993, in Digos, Davao del Sur, with the
respondent judge as the solemnizing officer; that she followed
complainant to the United States after a few months of marriage but
had to return to the Philippines with the complainant since she was
not accustomed to the weather conditions in the United States; her
union with the complainant bore them a child; after a few years,
complainant engaged

_______________

3 Rollo, p. 6.
4 Docketed as Civil Case No. 3458.
5 Rollo, pp. 9-10.
 293

VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 293

Young vs. Mapayo

in womanizing and started beating and harming her even over trivial
matters and the complainant later abandoned her and their child to
live with another woman in Pantukan, Davao del Norte; that there
was no truth to complainant’s claim that respondent made the former
sign blank marriage forms; that there was no truth either to
complainant’s allegation that he gave respondent judge Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to solemnize the marriage; that the
amount was part of the amount given to her mother to cover the
expenses of the marriage and her trip to the United States; that her
family had known respondent judge and his wife since 1987 and had
often asked for help since her aunt once worked for respondent’s
household; and her family had a high respect for respondent judge.
On June 2, 1999, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo
L. Suarez requested complainant to send photocopies of his passport
showing his exit and entry to this6
country for the period starting
March7 15, 1993 to June 9, 1993. Likewise, in a letter dated June 3,
1999, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Suarez requested
Commissioner Rufus B. Rodriguez of the Bureau of Immigration
(BI) for information and photocopies of complainant’s passport with
his alleged exit and entrance to the country during the aforesaid
period.
Respondent8 sent the9 Senior Deputy Court
10
Administrator a copy
of his Answer, a letter, and an Affidavit of complainant requesting
this Court not to pursue the case against respondent, with a personal
note to Deputy Court Administrator Suarez requesting help 11for the
dismissal of his case, the original copies of the documents were
received by the Court Administrator on July 22, 1999.

_______________

6 Rollo, p. 24.
7 Ibid., p. 25.
8 Ibid., p. 26.
9 Ibid., p. 28.
10 Ibid., p. 29.
11 Rollo, pp. 31-44.

294

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Mapayo

In reply to the request of Senior Deputy Court Administrator Suarez,

Bureau of Immigration Commissioner Rodriguez sent the travel
record/information
12
of the complainant based on their computer
records.
The Office
13
of the Court Administrator referred the complaint to
this Court for referral to an Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals for investigation, report 14and recommendation. In a
resolution dated September 20, 1999, we resolved to refer the case
to Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando for investigation, report
and recommendation.
In her Final Report and Recommendation dated February 14,
2000, Justice Salazar-Fernando recommended that respondent Judge
Mapayo be absolved of the charges of grave misconduct filed
against him.
 We find the recommendation of Justice Salazar-Fernando to be
well-taken.
Respondent Judge Mapayo is accused of (1) demanding and
receiving the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for the
solemnization of the marriage between complainant Marlan Young
and Virginia Parba; and (2) changing the date and place of marriage
of complainant and Parba. The first charge, if proven, would
constitute illegal exaction and/or violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act; and the second charge would constitute
falsification of public document under the Revised Penal Code.
However, complainant later executed an affidavit withdrawing
his complaint against respondent. However, such withdrawal will
not result in15the dismissal of the complaint. In Marcelino vs. Judge
Singson, Jr., we ruled:

“The Court has held in a number of instances that mere desistance on the
part of complainant does not warrant the dismissal of administrative
complaints against members of the bench. The with-

_______________

12 Ibid., p. 45.
13 Ibid., pp. 46-50.
14 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
15 243 SCRA 685 [1995].

295

VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 295

Young vs. Mapayo

drawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of
its power to determine the veracity of the charges made and to discipline,
such as the results of its investigation may warrant, an erring respondent.
The Court’s interest in the affairs of the judiciary is a paramount concern
that must not know bounds.”

We agree with the findings of Justice Salazar-Fernando that the

charges against respondent have not been proven. With respect to the
first charge, we quote Justice Salazar-Fernando’s report and
recommendation as follows:

“With regard to the first charge, the letter-affidavit of private complainant

alleged that respondent demanded and received the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) from him in consideration of the
solemnization of his marriage with Virginia Parba. The same statement was
categorically denied by respondent. Later, the complainant stated that the
amount stated was given to his former wife’s aunt during the ceremony, not
to the respondent.
“Virginia Parba, complainant’s former wife, on the other hand, alleged
that the amount was given to her mother to cover the expenses of the
wedding and her trip to the United States.
“Granting arguendo, complainant failed to prove that the amount of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos given to Parba’s aunt or mother which was
intended for the respondent was actually received by him. No evidence was
presented that respondent demanded or received the amount. In the absence
of any positive evidence directly pointing to respondent as the person16
who
demanded and received the amount, the charge must necessarily fail.”

With respect to complainant’s allegation that he was in the United

States when the marriage took place on June 9, 1993, in Digos,
Davao del Sur, the following evidence were presented:
“a. Certification from the Computer Section
17
of the Bureau of Immigration
(BI) on the travel of private complainant.

_______________

16 Final Report and Recommendation, p. 13.

17 Rollo, pp. 94-95.

296

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Mapayo

“The certification states that a certain Marlan W. Young departed Manila via
Northwest Airlines on March 16, 1993; arrived in Manila via the same
airline on October 6, 1993; departed Manila via the same airline on October
29, 1993; and arrived in Manila on February 8, 1994 on board the same
airline;
“a. Passenger Manifest of Northwest Airlines from the Records Section
of the BI; “The documents contain the same information as letter “a”;
“b. Photocopy of private complainant’s
18
passport purportedly showing his
arrival and departure from the country;
“The photocopy was not authenticated and could hardly be read. The
note of the complainant below states that19 he arrived in the Philippines on
May 19, 1993 and departed June 1, 1993.”

However, the above evidence are of dubious value in proving that

complainant was indeed out of the Philippines at the time the
marriage was celebrated on June 9, 1993. With respect to the first
piece of evidence, the certification from the Bureau of Immigration,
Justice Salazar-Fernando found:

“The first document (a) shows that Marlan W. Young who departed Manila
on March 16, 1993 had a different date of birth as against the Marlan W.
Young who arrived in Manila on October 6, 1993, left Manila on October
29, 1993 and arrived in Manila on February 8, 1994. Could it be
typographical error in the entry as the representative of BI assumed it to be?
“The second document (b) does not show details other than the name of
the passenger, flight number, date of entry/departure and airline. Had it
included other details like the date of birth, the probability 20
of a
typographical error in the first document (a) could be verified.”

Under such circumstances, it cannot be known for certain that the

Marlan W. Young, who had a birth date of 01/20/1942 and who left
the Philippines on March 16, 1993 was the same

_______________

18 Rollo, dorsal side of p. 181.

19 Final Report and Recommendation, p. 14.
20 Ibid.

297

VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 297

Young vs. Mapayo

Marlan W. Young who arrived on October 6, 1993 and who had a

birth date of 06/20/1942. The uncertainty in this regard is
compounded by the admission of Manolito Macanas of the Bureau
of Immigration that only the records for the flights coming in and
out of the Ninoy Aquino International
21
Airport (NAIA) and Mactan
Airport in Cebu are computerized. It thus cannot be verified if
complainant entered the country through a port other than the above-
mentioned airports.
Likewise, the third document is of little value. The alleged entries
on the passport could hardly be read. Also, it cannot be compared
with the original passport, considering that complainant refused to
produce the original documents.
Another factor that militates against complainant’s cause is the
fact that in his petition for annulment of marriage, he stated that the
marriage took place on June 9, 1993, which he belies in his
allegation in his complaint against respondent Judge that he was out
of the country at that time. Clearly, he is bound by such admission.
The allegation of complainant that the marriage was actually
celebrated on March 15, 1993 is belied by the documents supporting
the application for marriage such as the Affidavit in Lieu of Legal
22
Capacity to Contract Marriage for American Citizens of23
complainant, issued on May 19, 1993, and PreMarriage Counseling
dated May 25, 1993. In particular, the Affidavit in Lieu of
Certificate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage for American
Citizens was subscribed and sworn to before the Consul of the
United States on May 19, 1993 by complainant himself. It is difficult
to see how a marriage could be celebrated on March 15, 1993 when
the documents necessary for its validity were available only months
later. It is well-settled that entries in official records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by

_______________

21 TSN Nov. 23, 1999, Rollo, pp. 199-204.

22 Rollo, p. 254.
23 Ibid., p. 255.

298

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Mapayo

a person in the performance of a duty specially24enjoined by law, are

prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
We likewise note that, aside from requesting this Court not to
pursue the case against respondent Judge, complainant refused to
participate in the investigation despite due notice.
WHEREFORE, the complaint filed by Marlan Young against
Judge Hilario I. Mapayo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Digos,
Davao del Sur for grave misconduct is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Actg. Chairman) and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), On official leave.
Ynares-Santiago, J., No part.

Complaint dismissed.

Notes.—Affidavits are hearsay and self-serving, while passports

—by their very nature and process of issuance—cannot pass as
conclusive evidence insofar as the year and date of birth are
concerned. (Re: Samanodin L. Ampaso, 256 SCRA 679 [1996])
An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from
the testimonies of the witnesses who state that a wedding took place,
since the very purpose for having a wedding is to exchange vows of
marital commitment—it would indeed be unusual to have a wedding
without an exchange of vows and quite unnatural for people not to
 notice its absence. (Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 259
[1997])

——o0o——

_______________

24 National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 45 [1997].

299

VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 299

Reliance Commodities, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.