Second Assignment

1. MAXIMO ALVAREZ vs SUSAN RAMIREZ

G.R. 143439, October 14, 2005

Facts:

Susan Ramirez filed a criminal case for arson against her brother-in-law Maximo
Alvarez. The prosecution called to the witness stand its first witness Esperanza Alvarez,
sister of Susan and wife of Maximo. Esperanza testified but when she showed
uncontrolled emotions, the trial judge to suspended the proceedings. Subsequently,
Maximo, through counsel, filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against
him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital disqualification. The
trial court issued the questioned Order disqualifying Esperanza, prompting Susan to file a
petition for Certiorari before the CA. The CA nullified the order of the RTC.

Issue:

Can Esperanza testify against her husband in the arson case?

Held:

Yes. The offense of arson attributed to petitioner, directly impairs the conjugal
relation between him and his wife Esperanza. His act, as embodied in the Information
for arson filed against him, eradicates all the major aspects of marital life such as trust,
confidence, respect and love by which virtues the conjugal relationship survives and
flourishes.

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:

The act of private respondent in setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law
Susan Ramirez, knowing fully well that his wife was there, and in fact with
the alleged intent of injuring the latter, is an act totally alien to the
harmony and confidences of marital relation which the disqualification
primarily seeks to protect. The criminal act complained of had the effect
of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. It underscored the
fact that the marital and domestic relations between her and the
accused-husband have become so strained that there is no more
harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved. The Supreme Court has
held that in such a case, identity is non-existent. In such a situation, the
security and confidences of private life which the law aims to protect are
nothing but ideals which through their absence, merely leave a void in
the unhappy home. (People v. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504). Thus, there is
no longer any reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule.

It should be stressed that as shown by the records, prior to the commission of the
offense, the relationship between petitioner and his wife was already strained. In fact,
they were separated de facto almost six months before the incident. Indeed, the

Regean Ellorimo | Case Digests - Evidence 7

 Second Assignment

evidence and facts presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage between
petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an interest the State aims to protect.

At this point, it bears emphasis that the State, being interested in laying the truth
before the courts so that the guilty may be punished and the innocent exonerated,
must have the right to offer the direct testimony of Esperanza, even against the
objection of the accused, because it was the latter himself who gave rise to its
necessity.

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR., accused-

appellant.
G. R. No. 117401, October 1, 1998

Facts:

Accused Bernardo Quidato Jr was accused of parricide. He and two co-

conspirators allegedly attacked with a bolo and iron bars hack and stab the victim,
Bernardo Quidato Sr., appellant’s father and namesake, which caused the victim’s
untimely demise.

Among those presented as witness were accused’s wife and brother. Also
presented were the extrajudicial confessions of appellant’s two other co-accused.
Appellant’s wife testified that while the accused were drinking tuba she overheard
them saying that they were planning to go to the victim’s house on the night of the
incident in order to “get money” and that she had no idea of what later transpired.
Appellant objected to his wife’s testimony as it was prohibited by the rule on marital
disqualification. Appellant likewise denies the allegations of his co-accused who in their
extrajudicial confession pointed to the participation of appellant.

Issue:

Whether or not the testimony of appellant’s wife is disqualified.

Held:

YES. The testimony of appellant’s wife must be disregarded. As correctly

observed by the court a quo, the disqualification is between husband and wife, the law
not precluding the wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused, but not
where the testimony will be used against the accused-husband directly or indirectly.

Given the inadmissibility of accused’s wife’s testimony and the extrajudicial

confession of co-accused, the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED.

Regean Ellorimo | Case Digests - Evidence 8

 Second Assignment

3. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

COORDINATING COUNCIL (HUDCC), v. GONZALO ROQUE, JR., et. Al
G.R. No. 203610, October 10, 2016

Facts:

Gonzalo Roque, Jr. et. al., owned a several parcels of land located in
Constitution Hills, Quezon City. In 1978, the Republic, through DPWH, approached the
respondents and asked them to sell a portion of the land at government-dictated
prices lower than the market value

Regean Ellorimo | Case Digests - Evidence 9