2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

*
G.R. No. 143439. October 14, 2005.

MAXIMO ALVAREZ, petitioner, vs. SUSAN RAMIREZ,

respondent.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Words and Phrases; Marital

Disqualification; 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.—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 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
reasons given for the rule are: 1. There is identity of interests between
husband and wife; 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
spouse through the hostile testimony of the other.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Marvin H. Mesia for petitioner.
     Ponce Enrile, Reyes & Manalastas for respondent.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

73

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 73

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169346262715350ec5b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
2
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
3
Criminal Case No. 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:
  Swear in the witness.
  xxx
ATTY. MESIAH: (sic)
  Your Honor, we are offering the testimony of this witness for the
purpose of proving that the accused Maximo Alvarez committed
all the elements of the crime being charged particularly that
accused Maximo Alvarez pour

_______________

1 Under Rule 45, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.
2 Penned by Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Justice Ma.
Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Justice Elvi John S.
Asuncion.
3 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 19933-MN and captioned “People of the
Philippines vs. Maximo Alvarez.”

74

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvarez vs. Ramirez
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169346262715350ec5b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

  on May 29, 1998 gasoline in the house located at Blk. 5, Lot 9,

Phase 1-C, Dagat-dagatan, Navotas, Metro Manila, the house
owned by his sister-in-law Susan Ramirez; that accused
Maximo Alvarez 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
accused in successfully setting the fire to the house of Susan
Ramirez, the door of said house was burned and together with
several articles of the house, including shoes, chairs and others.
COURT:
  You may proceed.
  xxx
DIRECT EXAMINATION
ATTY. ALCANTARA:
  xxx
Q: When you were able to find the source, incidentally what was
the source of that scent?
A: When I stand by the window, sir, I saw a man pouring the
gasoline in the house of my sister (and witness pointing to the
person of the accused inside the court room).
Q: For the record, Mrs. Witness, can you state the name of that
person, if you know?
A: He is my husband, sir, Maximo Alvarez.
Q: If that Maximo Alvarez you were able to see, can you identify
him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If you can see him inside the Court room, can you please point
him?
A: Witness pointing to a person and when asked to stand and asked
4
his name, he gave his name as Maximo Alvarez.”

_______________

4 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), June 21, 1999 at pp. 3-7.

75

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 75

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169346262715350ec5b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

In the course of Esperanza’s 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 Esperanza Alvarez7 from further testifying and deleting
her testimony from the records. The prosecution filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied in the other assailed Order dated
8
October 19, 1999.
This prompted respondent Susan Ramirez, the complaining
witness in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN, to file with the Court of
9
Appeals a petition for certiorari with application
10
for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining 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.

_______________

5 Rollo at pp. 44-47.

6Id., at pp. 48-58.
7 Id., at pp. 85-87.
8 Id., at p. 88.
9 Under Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, as
amended.
10 Rollo at pp. 101-134.

76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

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 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 reasons given for the rule are:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169346262715350ec5b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;

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
11
punishing one 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 in-

_______________

11 People vs. Francisco, No. L-568, July 16, 1947, 78 Phil. 694, and Cargill vs.
State, 220, Pac., 64, 65; 25 Okl. Cr., 314; 35 A.L.R., 133.

77

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 77

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

terests 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,
12
merely leave a void in the unhappy
13
home.
In Ordoño vs. Daquigan, this Court held:

“We think that the correct rule, which may be adopted in this jurisdiction, is
that laid down in Cargil vs. State, 35 ALR 133, 220 Pac. 64, 25 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 committee (by) one against the
other.’ ”

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169346262715350ec5b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

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:

“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

_______________

12 People vs. Francisco, Id.

13 No. L-39012, January 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 270.

78

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

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. Castañeda, 271 SCRA 504 [1997]).
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 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 objection14
of the accused,
because (as stated by this Court in Francisco ), “it was the latter
himself who gave rise to its necessity.”

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169346262715350ec5b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
2/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

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.

          Panganiban (Chairman), Corona, Carpio-Morales and

Garcia, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

_______________

14 Supra.

79

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 79

Ramos vs. Heruela

Note.—For marital disqualification to apply, it is necessary that

the marriage is valid and subsisting at the time the testimony is
offered. (Arroyo vs. Azur, 76 Phil. 493 [1946]).

——o0o——

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169346262715350ec5b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7