Case Summary (G.R. No. 192984)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
The matter reached the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the Court of Appeals’ May 31, 2000 decision that annulled and set aside the trial court’s orders disqualifying the accused’s wife, Esperanza, from testifying. The central dispute is whether the trial court properly disqualified Esperanza from testifying against her husband under the marital disqualification rule embodied in Rule 130, Section 22.
Testimony at Trial (June 21, 1999)
During direct examination, Esperanza testified that she saw a man pouring gasoline on the house of her sister (the complaining witness) and, when asked to identify the man, pointed to the accused in the courtroom and identified him as her husband, Maximo Alvarez. The transcript of stenographic notes records the identification and surrounding circumstances. The accused exhibited strong emotional reaction during this testimony, prompting a suspension of proceedings.
Motion to Disqualify and Trial Court Orders
On June 30, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, moved to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him pursuant to Rule 130, Section 22 (marital disqualification). The prosecution opposed the motion. Pending resolution, the trial court permitted the prosecution to proceed with other witnesses. On September 2, 1999, the trial court issued an order disqualifying Esperanza from further testifying and ordered her testimony deleted from the records. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on October 19, 1999.
Court of Appeals Intervention
The complaining witness (Susan Ramirez) sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari with application for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. The Court of Appeals, by decision dated May 31, 2000, nullified and set aside the trial court’s orders disqualifying Esperanza and deleting her testimony. The Supreme Court review followed to resolve whether Esperanza could be compelled to testify notwithstanding the marital disqualification.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether, under Rule 130, Section 22 of the Revised Rules of Court and applicable jurisprudence, a wife (Esperanza) may testify against her husband (petitioner) in a criminal prosecution for arson where the alleged offense directly impairs the conjugal relation and the marital relationship was already strained and de facto separated prior to the incident.
Governing Statute and Doctrinal Foundations
Rule 130, Section 22 provides: “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 long-standing rationales for the marital witness bar—identity of interests between spouses, danger of perjury, protection of matrimonial privacy and confidences, and prevention of domestic disunion—are recognized. The decision cites controlling jurisprudence refining the exceptions to the rule, including the proposition that where an offense “directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation,” the exception to the disqualification applies (as articulated in the authorities reproduced in the record, including the rule adopted in Cargil v. State as applied in OrdoAo vs. Daquigan and prior cases such as People v. Francisco).
Application of Law to Facts — Direct Impairment of Conjugal Relation
The Court reasoned that the offense of arson charged against petitioner directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relation between him and his wife. The factual allegations and information on record assert that petitioner poured gasoline and set on fire the house owned by his sister-in-law while aware that his wife was present, an act that destroys trust, confidence, respect and safety—fundamental elements of the conjugal relationship that the marital disqualification rule seeks to protect. The record further shows the parties were already in
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192984)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 31, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56154.
- The Court of Appeals Decision had nullified and set aside assailed Orders issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Malabon City.
- The underlying criminal action is Criminal Case No. 19933-MN, captioned "People of the Philippines vs. Maximo Alvarez."
- The petition to the Court of Appeals was filed by respondent Susan Ramirez under Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended, with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
- The Supreme Court rendered its Decision on October 14, 2005 (G.R. No. 143439).
Parties and Relationships
- Petitioner: Maximo Alvarez — the accused in the arson case and husband of Esperanza G. Alvarez.
- Respondent: Susan Ramirez — the complaining witness and sister of Esperanza G. Alvarez; owner of the house allegedly set on fire.
- Witness at issue: Esperanza G. Alvarez — wife of the accused, sister of the complaining witness, called by the private prosecutor as the first witness.
Factual Background (as recorded)
- The arson incident alleged occurred on May 29, 1998 at the house located at Block 5, Lot 9, Phase 1-C, Dagat-dagatan, Navotas, Metro Manila, owned by Susan Ramirez.
- The Information alleges that Maximo Alvarez poured gasoline on and ignited the door of Susan Ramirez’s house, knowing it was occupied by Susan Ramirez, her family members, and Esperanza Alvarez, and that the door and several household articles (including shoes and chairs) were burned.
- On June 21, 1999, the private prosecutor called Esperanza Alvarez as the first witness against petitioner; petitioner and his counsel initially raised no objection to her being called.
- During direct examination, Esperanza testified that she saw a man pouring gasoline on her sister's house, pointed to the accused in the courtroom and identified him as her husband, Maximo Alvarez (Transcript of Stenographic Notes, June 21, 1999 at 3-7).
- In the course of Esperanza’s testimony, petitioner displayed "uncontrolled emotions," which prompted the trial judge to suspend the proceedings.
- Prior to the commission of the alleged offense, petitioner and Esperanza had been separated de facto almost six months.
Trial Court Proceedings and Orders
- On June 30, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital disqualification (motion filed June 30, 1999; rollo at 44-47).
- Respondent (the private prosecutor/complaining witness) filed an opposition to the motion (rollo at 48-58).
- Pending resolution of the motion, the trial court directed the prosecution to proceed with presentation of other witnesses.
- On September 2, 1999, the trial court issued the order disqualifying Esperanza Alvarez from further testifying and deleting her testimony from the records (rollo at 85-87).
- The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order, which was denied in an order dated October 19, 1999 (rollo at 88).
Court of Appeals Decision (May 31, 2000)
- The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 56154) rendered a Decision nullifying and setting aside the trial court’s assailed Orders which disqualified Esperanza and deleted her testimony.
- The Decision of the Court of Appeals was penned by Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria‑Martinez and Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion (footnote [2]).
Central Issue Presented
- Whether Esperanza Alvarez can testify against her husband, Maximo Alvarez, in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN, given the marital disqualification rule in Rule 130, Section 22 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Relevant Legal Provision Quoted
- Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court as provided in the record:
- "Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. - 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, o