AVELINO ORDOÑO, petitioner vs
HON. ANGEL DAQUIGAN, presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch I and CONRADO V. POSADAS, First Assistant Provincial Fiscal of La Union and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents
G.R. No. L-39012 January 31, 1975
FACTS:
Ordono was charged of rape committed against his 2 daughters. When the rape was first committed against Leonora, no charges were filed because of the threats made by the accused against his daughter and wife.
When the second rape was committed against his daughter Rose, his wife filed a complaint against him. When the mother was offered to give her oral testimony, the accused objected on the ground of marital disqualification.
ISSUE:
Whether the wife should be disqualified as a witness on the ground of marital disqualification.
RULING:
NO. - According to the Court, “where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails”.
In such a case identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of private life which the law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.
The wife is no longer disqualified by the rules. While it is true that the rules merely sought to protect the sanctity and peace of the family, when such reasons ceases to exist, the rule need no longer applied.
Thus, the wife is not disqualified by the rules to testify.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs
HON. MARIANO C. CASTANEDA, JR., AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, BRANCH III, & BENJAMIN F. MANALOTO, Respondents,
G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979
FACTS:
This is a case of falsification of public document. The document falsified was a Deed of Sale of a house and lot. The one who falsified was the husband knowing very well that the object sold was a conjugal property in need of mutual consent in order to effect a valid contract of sale.
The one suing was the wife herself alleging that her husband executed a Deed of Sale making it appear that she the spouse gave her marital consent to the said sale.
Here’s the court scene. Prosecution called wife to the witness stand. Defense moved to disqualify her as a witness invoking Sec. 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Prosecution defended its stand resting on the exception to that rule. Notwithstanding such opposition the respondent judge favored the husband and granted the defense’ motion to disqualify the wife to testify.
The wife elevated the case to the CA. CA affirmed the lower court and the case was brought to the Supreme Court for Certiorari.
ISSUES:
1. May a crime of Falsification of Public Document be considered as a criminal case committed by a husband against the wife.
2. And if it is, may it therefore come under the exception to the rule of the marital disqualification.
RULING:
Court answered on the affirmative.
When the offense directly attacks or impairs the conjugal relation, then it clearly comes within the exception. You see in this case it’s the husband’s breach of his wife’s confidence that gave rise to the offense. So the court said “Therefore with more reason the exception must apply since the one directly prejudiced is not a third person but the wife herself” who is a party to the conjugal property being purported dubiously to be sold. The wife wins the case.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JUAN FRANCISCO, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-568 July 16, 1947
FACTS:
On March 4, 1945, defendant, who had been previously arrested on charges of robbery, was being held as detention prisoner in the municipal jail of Mansalay, Mindoro. On that date he requested permission from the chief of police, and he was allowed to go with Sergeant Pacifico Pimentel, who was detailed to guard him. Upon their reaching the house, the sergeant allowed the prisoner to see his wife who was at the time in a room of said house, while said sergeant remained at the foot of the stairs. After a few moments, Pimentel heard the scream of a woman. Running upstairs, he met defendant's wife running out of the room and holding her right breast which was bleeding. Still moments later, Pimentel saw defendant lying down with his little son Romeo, aged one year and a half, on his breast. Pimentel also found defendant to have a wound in his belly while his child had a wound in the back. Pimentel found the child dead. Juan Francisco was charged with parricide. In the course of the proceeding the wife testifies against Francisco. The Defense contends that’s such testimony should not be admissible as evidence against the defendant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of the wife of Francisco against him is inadmissible as evidence.
RULING:
The testimony of the wife of is admissible. As a general rule the wife is prohibited to testify against his husband however it accepts certain exceptions: in civil actions between the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other.
Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound reasons which, in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule. It will be noted that the wife only testified against her husband after the latter, testifying in his own defense, imputed upon her the killing of their son. By all rules of justice and reason this gave the prosecution, which had theretofore refrained from presenting the wife as a witness against her husband, the right to do so, as it did in rebuttal; and the wife herself the right to so testify, at least, in self defense, not of course, against being subjected to punishment in that case in which she was not a defendant but against any or all of various possible consequences which might flow from her silence, namely: (1) a criminal prosecution against her which might be instituted by the corresponding authorities upon the basis of her husband's aforesaid testimony; (2) in the moral and social sense, her being believed by those who heard the testimony orally given, as well as by those who may read the same, once put in writing, to be the killer of her infant child. It has been aptly said that the law of evidence is the law of common sense.
JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA & PAQUITA LEZAMA, Petitioners, vs
HON. JESUS RODRIGUEZ, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, JOSE DINEROS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER OF THE LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO., INC., & AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents
23 SCRA 1166 (1968)
FACTS:
La Paz Ice Plant Inc. located in Iloilo was led by its President, Jose Manuel Lezama.
Unfortunately the Ice plant was going bankrupt and so the company was placed under receivership under Jose Dineros. A collection for sum of money was filed by Marciano Roque in the CFI of Manila being a resident thereof, he supposedly had lent to the company the amount of P150, 000.
Jose Dineros who was the acting as the receiver of the La Paz Ice plant after receiving an unfavorable judgement in the CFI of Manila upon the collection case, filed an action in the CFI of Iloilo for the annulment of the judgment of the CFI of Manila. In the filed action, he named Marciano Roque and the spouses Jose Manuel and Paquita Lezama as defendants alleging that because of the mismanagement of the Lezamas, the La Paz Ice Plant was placed under receivership and that through the collusion of the Lezamas, Roque had obtained a favorable decision against the company.
He also contend that the summons by the CFI of Manila was served not on him who is the receiver but on the spouses Lezama‘s, therefore the CFI of Manila acquired no jurisdiction of the case and the decision being void.
Spouses Lezama, while admitting that the company was placed under receivership, they maintained that Jose Lezama nevertheless remained President even while on receivership and as such he had the authority to receive court summons in behalf of the company and he denied entering into collusion with Roque and averred that the reason they never contested Roque’s claim because they knew it to be legitimate pursuant to a board of director’s resolution.
Dineros then asked the court to subpoena testificandum Paquita Lezama who was the wife of Jose Manuel Lezama to testify as a hostile witness. The request was granted by the court over the objection of the petitioners invoking the Marital Disqualification Rule.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a wife who is a co-defendant of her husband in an action, may be examined as a hostile witness by the adverse party without infringing on her marital privilege not to testify against her husband.
RULING:
No. She may not be examined as a hostile witness. The Supreme court said that the Marital Disqualification Rule is two edged. 1) the disqualification of husband and wife to testify in each other’s behalf and 2) As well as the privilege not to testify against each other.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE (SPOUSAL IMMUNITY)
• During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
• The spouses must be legally married to each other to invoke the benefit of the rule; it does not cover an illicit relationship. When the marriage is dissolved on the grounds provided for by law like annulment or declaration of nullity, the rule can no longer be invoked. A spouse can already testify against the other despite an objection being interposed by the affected spouse. If the testimony for or against the other spouse is offered during the existence of the marriage, it does not matter if the facts subject of the testimony occurred before the marriage. It only matters that the affected spouse objects to the offer of testimony.
• The testimony covered by the marital disqualification rule not only consists of utterances but also the production of documents.