2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Castañeda, Jr.

*
No. L-46306. February 27, 1979.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIANO

C. CASTAÑEDA, JR., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga, Branch III, and BENJAMIN F. MANALOTO,
respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Wife may testify against husband for crime of

falsification of a deed of sale of conjugal house and lot where wife was
made to appear as having given far consent to the sale.—With more reason
must the exception apply to the instant case where the victim of the crime
and the person who stands to be directly prejudic-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

563

VOL. 88, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 563

People vs. Castañeda, Jr.

ed by the falsification is not a third person but the wife herself. And it is
undeniable that the criminal act complained of had the effect of directly and
vitally impairing the conjugal relation. This is apparent not only in the act of
the wife in personally lodging her complaint with the office of the
Provincial Fiscal, but also in her insistent efforts in connection with the
instant petition, which seeks to set aside the order disqualifying her from
testifying against her husband. Taken collectively, the actuations of the
witness-wife underscore the fact that the martial and domestic relations
between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is
no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranguility which may be
disturbed. In such a case, as We have occasion to point out in previous
decisions, “identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693462fed5e9a92881003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088

perjury based on that identity is nonexistent. 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.” Thus, there is no reason to apply the marital
disqualification rule.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and

injunction.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

          Fiscal Regidor Y. Aglipay and Special Counsel Vicente
Macalino for petitioner.
     Moises Sevilla Ocampo for private petitioner.
     Cicero J. Punzalan for respondent.

SANTOS, J.:
1
On the basis of the complaint of his wife, Victoria M. Manaloto,
herein private respondent Benjamin Manaloto was charged before
the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, presided by respondent
Judge, Hon, Mariano C. Castañeda, Jr., with the crime of
Falsification of Public Document committed, according to the
Information, as follows:

That on or about the 19th day of May, 1975, in the Municipality of San
Fernando, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused BEN-

_______________

1 See Annexes “A”, “B”, and “B-1” of the Petition (Rollo, pp, 11-15).

564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Castañeda, Jr.

JAMIN F. MANALOTO, with deliberate intent to commit falsification, did

then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously counterfeit, imitate and
forge the signature of his spouse Victoria M. Manaloto in a deed of sale
executed by said accused wherein he sold a house and lot belonging to the
conjugal partnership of said spouse in favor of Ponciano Lacsamana under
Doc. No. 1957, Page No. 72, Book No. LVII, Series of 1975, notarized by
Notary Public Abraham Pa. Gorospe, thereby making it appear that his
spouse Victoria M. Manaloto gave her marital consent to said sale when in
2
fact and in truth she did not.

At the trial, the prosecution called the complainant-wife to the

witness stand but the defense moved to disqualify her as a witness,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693462fed5e9a92881003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088

invoking Sec. 20, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court which
provides:

SEC. 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or relationship.—The

following persons cannot testify as to matters in which they are interested,
directly or indirectly, as herein enumerated:
xx     xx     xx     xx     xx
(b) A husband can not be examined for or against his wife without her
consent; nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, except in
a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other.

The prosecution opposed said motion to disqualify on the ground

that the case falls under the exception to the rule, contending that it
is a “criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other.”
Notwithstanding such opposition, respondent Judge granted the
motion, disqualifying Victoria Manaloto from testifying for or
against her husband, in an order dated March 31, 1977. A motion for
reconsideration was filed but was denied by respondent Judge in an
order dated May 19, 1977.
Hence, this petition for certiorari filed by the office of the
Provincial Fiscal, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, seeking
to set aside the aforesaid orders of the respondent Judge and praying
that a preliminary injunction or a tem-

_______________

2 Annex “C” of the Petition (Rollo, pp. 16-17).

565

VOL. 88, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 565

People vs. Castañeda, Jr.

porary restraining order be issued by this Court enjoining said judge

from further proceeding with the trial of aforesaid Criminal Case
No. 1011.
On June 20, 1977, this Court resolved—(a) to issue a temporary
restraining order, and (b) to require
3
the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the petitioner. The Office of the Solicitor General
4
filed its Notice of Appearance on June 27, 1977, and its
5
Memorandum in support of the Petition on August 30, 1977. The6
respondents filed their Memorandum on September 5, 1977.
7
Whereupon, the case was considered submitted for decision.
From the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents emerges
the sole issues determinative of the instant petition, to wit: Whether
or not the criminal case for Falsification of Public Document filed
against herein private respondent Benjamin F. Manaloto—who

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693462fed5e9a92881003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088

allegedly forged the signature of his wife, Victoria M. Manaloto, in a

dead of sale, thereby making it appear that the latter gave her marital
consent to the sale of a house and lot belonging to their conjugal
partnership when in fact and in truth she did not—may be
considered as a criminal case for a crime committed by a husband
against his wife, and, therefore, an exception to the rule on marital
disqualification.
We sustain petitioner’s stand that the case is an exception to the
marital disqualification rule, as a criminal case for a crime
committed by the accused-husband against the witnesswife.
1. The act complained of as constituting the crime of Falsification
of Public Document is the forgery by the accused of his wife’s
signature in a deed of sale, thereby making it appear therein that said
wife consented to the sale of a house and lot belonging to their
conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth she did not. It must be
noted that had the sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of
the wile’s name by her hus-

_______________

3 Rollo, p. 39.
4 Ibid., p. 44.
5 Ibid., p. 76.
6 Ibid., p. 87.
7 Ibid., p. 99.

566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Castañeda, Jr.

band in the deed of sale, been made with the consent of the wife, no
crime could have been charged against said husband. Clearly,
therefore, it is the husband’s breach of his wife’s confidence which
gave rise to the offense charged. And it is this same breach of trust
which prompted the wife to make the necessary complaint with the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal which, accordingly, filed the aforesaid
criminal ease with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. To rule,
therefore, that such criminal case is not one for a crime committed
by one spouse against the other is to advance a conclusion which
completely disregards the factual antecendents of the instant case.
2. This is not the first time that the issue of whether a specific
offense may be classified as a crime committed by one spouse
against the other is presented to this
8
Court for resolution. Thus, in
the case of Ordoño v. Daquigan, this Court, through Mr. Justice
Ramon C. Aquino, set up the criterion to be followed in resolving
the issue, stating that:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693462fed5e9a92881003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088

We think that the correct rule, which may be adopted in this jurisdiction, is
that laid down in Cargill vs. State, 35 ALR, 133. 220, Pac. 64, 26 Okl. 314,
wherein the court said:

“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 DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND VITALLY IMPAIRS,
THE CONJUGAL RELATION, 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 crime committed (by) one against the other.”

Applying the foregoing criterion in mid case of Ordoño v. Daquigan,

this Court held that the rape committed by the husband of the
witness-wife against their daughter was a crime committed by the
husband against his wife. Although the victim of the crime
committed by the accused in that case was not

_______________

8 G.R. No. L-39012, January 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 270, at 273.

567

VOL. 88, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 567

People vs. Castañeda, Jr.

his wife but their daughter, this Court, nevertheless, applied the
exception for the reason that said criminal act “positively
9
undermine(d) the connubial relationship.”
With more reason must the exception apply to the instant case
where the victim of the crime and the person who stands to be
directly prejudiced by the falsification is not a third person but the
wife herself. And it is undeniable that the criminal act complained of
had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation.
This is apparent not only in the act of the wife in personally lodging
her complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, but also in her
10
insistent efforts in connection with the instant petition, which seeks
to set aside the order disqualifying her from testifying against her
husband. Taken collectively, the actuations of the witness-wife
underscore the fact that the martial and domestic relations between
her and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is
no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquillity which
may be disturbed. In such a case, as We have occasion to point out
in previous decisions, “identity of interests disappears and the
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is nonexistent.
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
11
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693462fed5e9a92881003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088
11
home.” Thus, there is no reason to apply the martial
disqualification rule.
3. Finally, overriding considerations of public policy demand that
the wife should not be disqualified from testifying

_______________

9 Id., p. 274.
10 Victoria Manaloto, through her counsel, assisted the Provincial Fiscal of
Pampanga in filing the instant petition for certiorari (rollo, pp. 9-10). Furthermore,
she filed on Aug. 22, 1977 a memorandum in support of the petition (rollo, pp. 68-
74), and, on Dec. 28, 1977, a pleading entitled “Chronologically—Effected
Observations and Circumstances in Support of or to Butress Memorandum for Private
Petitioner Victoria M. Manaloto, dated August 18, 1977 “informing this Court that the
trouble in her marital relation with her husband, the herein private respondent, is
“beyond repair.” (rollo, pp. 105-108).
11 People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694, 704 (cited in Ordoño vs. Daquigan, supra.).

568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Castañeda, Jr.

against her husband in the instant case. For, as aptly observed by the
Solicitor General, “(t)o espouse the contrary view would spawn the
dangerous precedent of a husband committing as many falsifications
against his wife as he could conjure, seeking shelter in the anti-
marital privilege as a license to injure and prejudice her in secret—
all with unabashed and complete impunity.”
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the order of the lower
court dated March 31, 1977, disqualifying Victoria Manaloto from
testifying for or against her husband, Benjamin Manaloto, in
Criminal Case No. 1011, as well as the order dated May 19, 1977,
denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby SET ASIDE. The
temporary restraining order issued by this Court is hereby lifted and
the respondent Judge is hereby ordered to proceed with the trial of
the case, allowing Victoria Manaloto to testify against her husband.
SO ORDERED.

     Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Con-

cepcion Jr., JJ., concur.

Order set aside.

Note.—The husband’s sale of conjugal lot without the wife’s

consent is not valid. (Villocino vs. Doyon, 18 SCRA 1094; Reyes vs.
De Leon, 20 SCRA 369).
The wife may ask the court to renounce the administrative of
conjugal properties from the husband for her protection. (Ysasi vs.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693462fed5e9a92881003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 088

Fernandez, 23 SCRA 1079).

A debt contracted by the wife is a debt of the conjugal
partnership where the husband was negligent in allowing the wife to
incur debts. (Garcia vs. Cruz, 25 SCRA 224).
An illegal detainer judgment against the husband alone over a
piece of land paraphernal in character cannot bind nor affect the
wife’s possession thereof. (Plata vs. Yatco, 12 SCRA 718).

——o0o——

569

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693462fed5e9a92881003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7