Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72
Alvarez vs. Ramirez,
473 SCRA 72
FACTS Susan Ramirez filed a criminal case for arson against her brother-in-law Maximo Alvarez. The prosecution called to the witness stand its first witness Esperanza Alvarez, sister of Susan and wife of Maximo. Esperanza testified but when she showed uncontrolled emotions, the trial judge to suspended the proceedings. Subsequently, Maximo, 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. The trial court issued the questioned Order disqualifying Esperanza, prompting Susan to file a petition for Certiorari before the CA. The CA nullified the order of the RTC. Can Esperanza testify against her husband in the arson case?
RULING YES. The Supreme Court elucidated the doctrine that the marital disqualification rule has its exceptions, particularly in cases where an offense directly attacks or vitally impairs the conjugal relation. It underscored that in circumstances where domestic harmony and tranquility no longer exist due to one spouse’s criminal action against the other, the policy reasons behind the marital disqualification rule no longer apply. In cases where the marital relationship is already strained or damaged significantly by a criminal act, testimony from one spouse against the other may be permissible.
Here, 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.