Alvarez Vs Ramirez

4/20/2016
AlvarezvsRamirez:143439:October14,2005:J.SandovalGutierrez:ThirdDivision:Decision
THIRD DIVISION
MAXIMO ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
- versus
SUSAN RAMIREZ,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 143439
Present:
PANGANIBAN, J., Chairman,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES, and
GARCIA, JJ.
Promulgated:
October 14, 2005
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
[1]
[2]
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated May 31, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56154, entitled SUSAN
RAMIREZ, petitioner, versus, HON. BENJAMIN M. AQUINO, JR., as JUDGE
RTC, MALABON, MM, BR. 72, and MAXIMO ALVAREZ, respondents.
Susan Ramirez, herein respondent, is the complaining witness in Criminal Case No.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/143439.htm
1/9
4/20/2016
[3]
19933-MN for arson pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Malabon
City. The accused is Maximo Alvarez, herein petitioner. He is the husband of
Esperanza G. Alvarez, sister of respondent.
On June 21, 1999, the private prosecutor called Esperanza Alvarez to the witness
stand as the first witness against petitioner, her husband. Petitioner and his counsel
raised no objection.
Esperanza testified as follows:
ATTY.ALCANTARA:
We are calling Mrs. Esperanza Alvarez, the wife of the accused, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Swearinthewitness.
xxx
ATTY.MESIAH:(sic)
YourHonor,weareofferingthetestimonyofthiswitnessforthepurposeof
provingthattheaccusedMaximoAlvarezcommittedalltheelementsofthecrime
being charged particularly that accused MaximoAlvarez pour on May 29, 1998
gasoline in the house located at Blk. 5, Lot 9, Phase 1C, Dagatdagatan,
Navotas,MetroManila,thehouseownedbyhissisterinlawSusanRamirezthat
accused MaximoAlvarez after pouring the gasoline on the door of the house of
Susan Ramirez ignited and set it on fire that the accused at the time he
successfully set the house on fire (sic) of Susan Ramirez knew that it was
occupied by Susan Ramirez, the members of the family as well as Esperanza
Alvarez, the estranged wife of the accused that as a consequence of the
accusedinsuccessfullysettingthefiretothehouseofSusanRamirez,thedoor
of said house was burned and together with several articles of the house,
includingshoes,chairsandothers.
COURT:
Youmayproceed.
xxx
2/9
4/20/2016
DIRECTEXAMINATION
ATTY.ALCANTARA:
xxx
Q: When you were able to find the source, incidentally what was the source of
thatscent?
A:WhenIstandbythewindow,sir,Isawamanpouringthegasolineinthehouse
ofmysister(andwitnesspointingtothepersonoftheaccusedinsidethe
courtroom).
Q: For the record, Mrs. Witness, can you state the name of that person, if you
know?
A:Heismyhusband,sir,MaximoAlvarez.
Q:IfthatMaximoAlvarezyouwereabletosee,canyouidentifyhim?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:IfyoucanseehiminsidetheCourtroom,canyoupleasepointhim?
A:Witnesspointingtoapersonandwhenaskedtostandandaskedhisname,he
[4]
gavehisnameasMaximoAlvarez.
In the course of Esperanzas direct testimony against petitioner, the latter

showed uncontrolled emotions, prompting the trial judge to suspend the proceedings.
[5]
On June 30, 1999, petitioner, 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.
[6]
Respondent filed an opposition
to the motion. Pending resolution of the motion,
the trial court directed the prosecution to proceed with the presentation of the other
witnesses.
On September 2, 1999, the trial court issued the questioned Order disqualifying
3/9
4/20/2016
Esperanza Alvarez from further testifying and deleting her testimony from the
[7]
records. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in the
[8]
other assailed Order dated October 19, 1999.
This prompted respondent Susan Ramirez, the complaining witness in
Criminal Case No. 19933-MN, to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for
[9]
certiorari
with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
[10]
order.
On May 31, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision nullifying and setting
aside the assailed Orders issued by the trial court.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
The issue for our resolution is whether Esperanza Alvarez can testify against
her husband in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN.
Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
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
consentoftheaffectedspouse,exceptinacivilcasebyoneagainsttheother,or
in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters
directdescendantsorascendants.
The reasons given for the rule are:

1.There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
4/9
4/20/2016
2.If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of
perjury;
3.The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life,
even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
disunion and unhappiness; and
4.Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one
[11]
spouse through the hostile testimony of the other.
But like all other general rules, the marital disqualification rule has its own
exceptions, both 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. For instance, 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
[12]
ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.
[13]
In Ordoo vs. Daquigan,
this Court held:
Wethinkthatthecorrectrule,whichmaybeadoptedinthisjurisdiction,is
thatlaiddowninCargilvs.State,35ALR133,220Pac.64,25Okl.314,wherein
5/9
4/20/2016
thecourtsaid:
The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong
upon the person is too narrow and the rule that any offense
remotely or indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the
exception is too broad. The better rule is that, when an offense
directlyattacks,ordirectlyandvitallyimpairs,theconjugalrelation,it
comes within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a
witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a
crimecommittee(by)oneagainsttheother.
Obviously, 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:
Theactofprivaterespondentinsettingfiretothehouseofhissisterinlaw
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
confidencesofmaritalrelationwhichthedisqualificationprimarilyseekstoprotect.
Thecriminalactcomplainedofhadtheeffectofdirectlyandvitallyimpairingthe
conjugal relation. It underscored the fact that the marital and domestic relations
betweenherandtheaccusedhusbandhavebecomesostrainedthatthereisno
moreharmony,peaceortranquilitytobepreserved.TheSupremeCourthasheld
thatinsuchacase,identityisnonexistent.Insuchasituation,thesecurityand
confidences of private life which the law aims to protect are nothing but ideals
whichthroughtheirabsence,merelyleaveavoidintheunhappyhome.(Peoplev.
Castaeda, 271 SCRA 504). Thus, there is no longer any reason to apply the
MaritalDisqualificationRule.
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
evidence and facts presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage between
6/9
4/20/2016
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
[14]
against the objection of the accused, because (as stated by this Court in Francisco
),
it was the latter himself who gave rise to its necessity.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The trial
court, RTC, Branch 72, Malabon City, is ordered to allow Esperanza Alvarez to
testify against petitioner, her husband, in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman
RENATO C. CORONA
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
7/9
4/20/2016
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

Chief Justice
[1]
UnderRule45,Section1ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCivilProcedure,asamended.
[2]
PennedbyJusticePortiaAlioHormachuelosandconcurredinbyJusticeMa.AliciaAustriaMartinez(nowamemberof
thisCourt)andJusticeElviJohnS.Asuncion.
[3]
DocketedasCriminalCaseNo.19933MNandcaptionedPeopleofthePhilippinesvs.MaximoAlvarez.
[4]
TranscriptofStenographicNotes(TSN),June21,1999at37.
[5]
Rolloat4447.
[6]
Id.at4858.
[7]
Id.at8587.
[8]
Id.at88.
8/9
4/20/2016
[9]
UnderRule65,Section1ofthe1997RevisedRulesonCivilProcedure,asamended.
[10]
Rolloat101134.
[11]
PeopleofthePhilippinesvs.Francisco,No.L568,July16,1947,78Phil.694,andCargillvs.State,220,Pac.,64,65
25Okl.Cr.,31435A.L.R.,133.
[12]
PeopleofthePhilippinesvs.Francisco,id.
[13]
No.L39012,January31,1975,62SCRA270.
[14]
Supra.
9/9

Alvarez Vs Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alvarez Vs Ramirez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alvarez Vs Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/20/2016

G.R. No. 143439

PANGANIBAN, J., Chairman,

October 14, 2005

In the course of Esperanzas direct testimony against petitioner, the latter

The reasons given for the rule are:

Obviously, the offense of arson attributed to petitioner, directly impairs the

It should be stressed that as shown by the records, prior to the commission of

petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an interest the State aims to protect.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

You might also like