Page 1 of 5

WHEN DOES IT APPLY (RULE ON MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION) was granted over the objection of the petitioners who invoked
the following provision of the Rules of Court:
LEZAMA ET AL, vs. RODRIGUEZ
A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without
her consent; nor a wife for or against her husband without his
FACTS:
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, or
- On July 18, 1960 Jose S. Dineros, acting as receiver of the La in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co. in Iloilo, together with C.N. other.
Hodges and Ricardo Gurrea, filed an action in the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo for the annulment of a judgment rendered
ISSUE:
against the La Paz Ice Plant by the Court of First Instance of
Manila in civil case 39827. Named as defendants were
Marciano C. Roque, in whose favor judgment was rendered, In this case where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging fraud
and the spouses Jose Manuel and Paquita Lezama. The against the spouses, can the wife be compelled to testify as an adverse
complaint alleged that, because of mismanagement by the party witness concerning her participation in the alleged fraud without
Lezamas, the La Paz Ice Plant was placed under the violating section 20 (b) of Rule 130?
receivership of Dineros; that during the pendency of the
receivership, Marciano C. Roque brought an action against the
La Paz Ice Plant in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the
collection of P150,000, which sum he had supposedly lent to it; HELD:
that summons was served not on the receiver but on the
spouses Jose Manuel and Paquita Lezama; and that, through
the collusion of the Lezamas, Roque was able to obtain Yes, the wife can testify.
judgment by default against the company. It was claimed that,
because the summons was served on Jose Manuel Lezama While the petitioners denied the charge that the loan was fictitious, they
instead of on the receiver, the Court of First Instance of Manila did not deny the allegation that it was Paquita Lezama who, as secretary
acquired no jurisdiction over the La Paz Ice Plant and that, of the company, signed the minutes of the meeting at which Jose
therefore, the decision of that court was void Manuel Lezama was allegedly authorized to negotiate the loan and that
- the defendant spouses (the herein petitioners), while admitting it was she who, likewise as secretary, made the entry in the books of the
that the company was placed under receivership, maintained corporation.
that Jose Manuel Lezama nevertheless remained president of
the La Paz Ice Plant and that as such he had authority to It was obviously to test the truth of the assertion that the loan transaction
receive in behalf of the company the court summons in civil was above board that Dineros, the company receiver, wanted Paquita
case 39827. They denied entering into collusion with Roque and Lezama on the witness stand, not as a spouse witness "for or against
averred that they did not contest Roque's claim because they her husband," but rather as an adverse party in the case.
knew it to be a legitimate obligation which the La Paz Ice Plant
had incurred pursuant to a resolution of its board of directors.
The complaint charges "fraudulent conspiracy" on the part of the
- At the hearing Dineros asked the court to issue asubpoena to
spouses and one Marciano C. Roque to make it appear that the La Paz
Paquita Lezama to testify as "a witness summoned by the Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. was indebted to Roque. The wife,
plaintiffs in accordance with the Rules of Court." The request Paquita Lezama, is called upon to testify as an adverse party witness on
the basis of her following participation in the alleged fraudulent scheme:
Page 2 of 5

"that it was Paquita Lezama who as Secretary of the company signed expanded in meaning or scope as to allow examination of one's spouse
the minutes of the meeting during which Manuel Lezama was allegedly in a situation where this natural repugnance obtains.
authorized to negotiate the loan and that it was she who, likewise as
Secretary, made the entry in the books of the corporation." It may not be amiss to state in passing that the respondent Dineros has
not demonstrated that there is no evidence available to him other than
Evidently, Paquita Lezama will be asked to testify on what actually the Lezamas' testimony to prove the charge recited in the complaint
transpired during the meeting and will be asked questions on the matter
of the veracity or falsity of the entry in the books of the corporation. *** In other words, wife can testify in the lower court as a hostile witness.
Whether her testimony will turn out to be adverse or beneficial to her
own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her against her
husband. The interests of husband and wife in this case are necessarily
interrelated. Testimony adverse to the wife's own interests would tend to
show the existence of collusive fraud between the spouses and would ORDOÑO vs. DAQUIGAN
then work havoc upon their common defense that the loan was not
fictitious. There is the possibility, too, that the wife, in order to soften her FACTS:
own guilt, if guilty she is, may unwittingly testify in a manner entirely
disparaging to the interests of the husband.
- Avelino Ordoño was charged in the municipal court of San
Gabriel, La Union with having raped his daughter, Leonora, on
Because of the unexpensive wording of the rule which provides merely October 11, 1970.
that the wife cannot be examined "for or against her husband without his - In support of that complaint, Catalina Balanon Ordoño, the
consent," it is further argued that "when husband and wife are parties to mother of Leonora, executed a sworn statement wherein she
an action, there is no reason why either may not be examined as a disclosed that on that same date, October 11th, Leonora had
witness for or against himself or herself alone," and his or her testimony apprised her of the outrage but no denunciation was filed
could operate only against himself or herself.12 because Avelino Ordoño threatened to kill Leonora and Catalina
(his daughter and wife, respectively) if they reported the crime
Even if such view were generally acceptable as an exception to the rule, to the police.
or even as a separate doctrine, it would be inapplicable in this case - Catalina Ordoño in her sworn statement further revealed that
where the main charge is collusive fraud between the spouses and a her husband had also raped their other daughter, Rosa, on
third person, and the evident purpose of examination of the wife is to March 25 and April 7, 1973. He was charged in court with that
prove that charge. offense.
- The case against Avelino Ordoño, where Leonora Ordoño was
The final point urged upon us is that to prevent one spouse from the complainant, was elevated to the Court of First Instance of
testifying would encourage alliance of husband and wife as an La Union, San Fernando, Branch (Criminal Case No. 356). On
instrument of fraud; for then what better way would there be to prevent May 29, 1974 the Fiscal presented Catalina Ordoño as the
discovery than to make a co-conspirator in fraud immune to the most second prosecution witness. After she had stated her personal
convenient mode of discovery available to the opposite party? This circumstances, the defense counsel objected to her
argument overlooks the fact that section 6 of Rule 132 is a mere competency. He invoked the marital disqualification rule found
concession, for the sake of discovery, from the rule which precludes the in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
husband or the wife from becoming the means of the other's - The trial court overruled the objection.
condemnation. The said rule of discovery should therefore not be
ISSUE:
Page 3 of 5

The issue is whether the rape committed by the husband against his the connubial relationship, is a proposition too obvious to require much
daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife within the elucidation.
meaning of the exception found in the marital disqualification rule.
*** Sec. 22 already stated the exception “for a crime committed by
HELD: one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants”
The wife can testify.

There is a dictum that "where the marital and domestic relations are so
strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and PEOPLE vs.QUIDATO
tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such
harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case identity of interests FACTS:
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 - On January 17, 1989, accused-appellant was charged with the
nothing but ideals which, through their absence, merely leave a void in crime of parricide before the Regional Trial Court of Davao.
the unhappy home" - The prosecution, in offering its version of the facts, presented as
its witnesses accused-appellant's brother Leo Quidato,
appellant's wife Gina Quidato, as well as Patrolman Lucrecio
We think that the correct rule, which may be adopted in this jurisdiction, Mara. Likewise, the prosecution offered in evidence affidavits
is that laid down in Cargill vs. State, 35 ALR 133, 220 Pac. 64, 25 Okl. containing the extra-judicial confessions of Eddie Malita and
314, wherein the court said: Reynaldo Malita. The two brothers were, however, not
presented by the prosecution on the witness stand.
The rule that the injury must amount to a physical - Bernardo Quidato, Sr. was the father of accused-appellant
wrong upon the person is too narrow; and the rule that Bernardo Quidato, Jr. and Leo Quidato.
any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic - According to Gina Quidato, on the evening of the next day,
harmony comes within the exception is too broad. The September 17, 1988, accused-appellant and the Malita brothers
better rule is that, when an offense directly attack or were drinking tuba at their house. She overheard the trio
directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it planning to go to her father-in-law's house to get money from
comes within the exception to the statute that one shall the latter.
not be a witness against the other except in a criminal - Accused-appellant objected to Gina Quidato's testimony on the
prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the ground that the same was prohibited by the marital
other. disqualification rule found in Section 22 of Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court. The judge, acknowledging the applicability of the so-
Using the criterion thus judiciously enunciated in the Cargill case, it can called rule, allowed said testimony only against accused-
be concluded that in the law of evidence the rape perpetrated by the appellant's co-accused, Reynaldo and Eddie.
father against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife - Malita brothers confessed to their participation in the crime,
(the victim's mother). * executing affidavits detailing how Bernardo was killed.
- In his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations of the
Malita brothers. He claimed that the Malita brothers were not at
That the rape of the daughter by the father, an undeniably abominable
his house on the evening of September 17, 1988.
and revolting crime with incestuous implications, positively undermines
- After due trial, the trial court foud Quidato Jr. guilty of Parricide.
Page 4 of 5

ISSUE: two, his inexplicable failure to return home immediately, his failure to
seek assistance from the authorities, the fact that Eddie stayed with him
WON there is enough proof to convict the appellant of the crime and that immediately after the incident, and the nine-day lacuna between the
the testimony of his wife may be used against him. killing and his pointing to the Malita brothers as the culprits, all suggest a
complicity more than that of an unwilling participant. Yet, suspicion, no
matter how strong, should not sway judgment, it being an accepted
HELD:
axiom that the prosecution cannot rely on the weakness of the defense
to gain a conviction, but must establish beyond reasonable doubt every
Accused-appellant must be acquitted. circumstance essential to the guilt of the accused. 15 This the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate.
In indicting accused-appellant, the prosecution relied heavily on the
affidavits executed by Reynaldo and Eddie. The two brothers were, ALVAREZ vs. RAMIREZ
however, not presented on the witness stand to testify on their extra-
judicial confessions. The failure to present the two gives these affidavits FACTS:
the character of hearsay. It is hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants
themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their
affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceeding, - Susan Ramirez, herein respondent, is the complaining witness
being inadmissible hearsay. 10 The voluntary admissions of an accused in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN for arson3pending before the
made extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his co- Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Malabon City. The accused is
accused when the latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him Maximo Alvarez, herein petitioner. He is the husband of
testify and cross-examine him. 11 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
With regard to Gina Quidato's testimony, the same must also be
petitioner, her husband. Petitioner and his counsel raised no
disregarded, accused-appellant having timely objected thereto under the
objection.
marital disqualification rule. As correctly observed by the court a quo, the
- On June 30, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion5 to
disqualification is between husband and wife, the law not precluding the
disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him pursuant to
wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused. 14 Hence,
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital
Gina Quidato could testify in the murder case against Reynaldo and
disqualification.
Eddie, which was jointly tried with accused-appellant's case. This
- Respondent filed an opposition6 to the motion. Pending
testimony cannot, however, be used against accused-appellant directly
resolution of the motion, the trial court directed the prosecution
or through the guise of taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the
to proceed with the presentation of the other witnesses.
murder case without violating the marital disqualification rule. "What
- The trial court issued the questioned Order disqualifying
cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly" is a rule familiar even
Esperanza Alvarez from further testifying and deleting her
to law students.
testimony from the records.
- Appellate Court rendered a Decision nullifying and setting aside
Given the inadmissibility in evidence of Gina Quidato's testimony, as well the assailed Orders issued by the trial court.
as of Reynaldo and Eddie's extrajudicial confessions, nothing remains
on record with which to justify a judgment unfavorable to accused-
ISSUE:
appellant. Admittedly, accused-appellant's defense, to put it mildly, is
dubious. His alleged acquiescence to the demand of the Malita brothers
to accompany them to his father's house on the strength of the The issue for our resolution is whether Esperanza Alvarez can testify
latter's verbal threats, his incredulous escape from the clutches of the against her husband in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN.
Page 5 of 5

HELD: 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
Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: 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.’"
"Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage,
neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other Obviously, the offense of arson attributed to petitioner, directly impairs
without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one the conjugal relation between him and his wife Esperanza. His act, as
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one embodied in the Information for arson filed against him, eradicates all
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants." the major aspects of marital life such as trust, confidence, respect and
love by which virtues the conjugal relationship survives and flourishes.
The reasons given for the rule are:
As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:
1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
"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
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent fact with the alleged intent of injuring the latter, is an act totally alien to
danger of perjury;
the harmony and confidences of marital relation which the
disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The criminal act complained of
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. It
private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to underscored the fact that the marital and domestic relations between her
prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is no
more harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved.
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of
punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other.11 ***In short, wife can testify against her husband--- duh! The
husband is also trying to kill his wife when he tried to burn down
But like all other general rules, the marital disqualification rule has its the house of his sister-in-law--- he knew that his wife stays there.
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.

In Ordoño vs. Daquigan,13 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.