Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > January 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-39012 January 31, 1975 - AVELINO ORDOÑO v. ANGEL DAQUIGAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-39012. January 31, 1975.]

AVELINO ORDOÑO, Petitioner, v. HON. ANGEL DAQUIGAN, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch I and CONRADO V. POSADAS, First Assistant Provincial Fiscal of La Union and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Pedro G. Peralta for Petitioner.

Conrado Y. Posadas for and in behalf of other respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner, on trial for having raped his daughter, objected to the presentation of his wife as a prosecution witness invoking the marital disqualification rule found in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. When the trial court overruled the objection, he filed the instant petition. Finding no error in the ruling of the lower court, the Supreme Court held that in the law of evidence, the rape committed by the husband against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife within the meaning of the exception found in the marital disqualification rule.


SYLLABUS


1. EVIDENCE; MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE; EXCEPTION; WIFE MAY TESTIFY AGAINST HUSBAND IN CASE OF RAPE COMMITTED BY HUSBAND AGAINST THEIR DAUGHTER. — Under the marital disqualification rule found in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court providing that the husband or wife cannot be a witness for or against the other,." . . except in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other." the wife is competent to testify against her husband in a case of rape committed by the husband against their daughter, In the law of evidence, the rape of a daughter is a crime committed by the husband his wife within the meaning of the exception.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTERPRETATION OF "IN A CRIMINAL CASE FOR A CRIME COMMITTED BY ONE AGAINST THE OTHER." — The phrase "in a tribunal case for a crime committed by one against the other," an exception to the marital disqualification rule, should be interpreted to refer to an offense which directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relations.

3. ID.; ID’.; ID.; WIFE MAY TESTIFY AGAINST HUSBAND IN CASE OF RAPE OF STEPDAUGHTER. — In Wilkinson v. People, 282 Pac. 257, it was held that the wife was a competent witness against the husband in a prosecution for rape committed by the husband against his stepdaughter, who is the wife’s natural daughter because the crime was "an outrage upon nature in its dearest and tenderest relations as well as a crime against humanity itself." The court adopted the interpretation the "a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other" may refer to a crime where the wife is the individual partially and directly injured or affected by the crime for which the husband is being prosecuted."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; WIFE COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AGAINST HUSBAND IN INCEST COMMITTED BY HUSBAND AGAINST STEPDAUGHTER. — In State v. Chambers, 87 Iowa 1, 53 N.W. 1090, it was held under the statutory provision the husband or wife shall in no case be a witness for or against the other, except in a criminal proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other, that the wife was competent to testify against the other, that the wife was competent to testify against the husband in a case where he was prosecuted for incest committed against his stepdaughter.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; WIFE CAN TESTIFY AGAINST HUSBAND IN INCEST COMMITTED BY HUSBAND AGAINST DAUGHTER. — In State v. Shultz, 177 Iowa 321, 158 N.W. 539, it was held that the wife may testify against the husband in a case where he was prosecuted for incest committed against their eleven-year old daughter because incest is a "crime committed against the wife."


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Avelino Ordoño was charged in the municipal court of San Gabriel, La Union with having raped his daughter, Leonora, on October 11, 1970. The verified complaint dated November 7, 1973 was signed by the twenty-four year old victim (Criminal Case No. 104).

In support of that complaint, Catalina Balanon Ordoño, the mother of Leonora, executed a sworn statement wherein she disclosed that on that same date, October 11th, Leonora has apprised her of the outrage but no denunciation was filed because Avelino Ordoño threatened to kill Leonora and Catalina (his daughter and wife, respectively) if they reported the crime to the police.

Catalina Ordoño in her sworn statement further revealed that her husband had also raped their other daughter, Rosa, on March 25 and April 7, 1973. He was charged in court with that offense

Catalina Ordoño said that the rape committed by Avelino Ordoño against Leonora was mentioned during the investigation and trial of Avelino Ordoño for the rape committed against Rosa Ordoño. Catalina’s statement on this point is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Why did you not file the complaint against your husband concerning the incident involving Leonora Ordoño?

"A Are also narrated the incident during the investigation in the Fiscal’s Office and also when I testified in court in the case of my daughter Rosa Ordoño but then my daughter Leonora Ordoño was still in Manila, sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

During the preliminary investigation of the rape committed against Leonora, Catalina manifested that she was no longer afraid to denounce Avelino Ordoño because he was already in jail for having raped Rosa Ordoño.

The case against Avelino Ordoño, where Leonora Ordoño was the complainant, was elevated to the Court of First Instance of La Union, San Fernando Branch (Criminal Case No. 356). On May 29, 1974 the Fiscal presented Catalina Ordoño as the second prosecution witness. After she had stated her personal circumstances, the defense counsel objected to her competency. He invoked the marital disqualification rule found in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(b) A husband cannot 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;

x       x       x


Counsel claimed that Avelino Ordoño had not consented expressly or impliedly to his wife’s testifying against him.

The trial court overruled the objection. After the denial of Avelino Ordoño’s motion for the reconsideration of the adverse ruling, he filed the instant action for certiorari and prohibition. He was allowed to sue in forma pauperis.

The issue is whether the rape committed by the husband against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife within the meaning of the exception found in the marital disqualification rule.

Should the phrase "in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other" be restricted to crimes committed by one spouse against the other, such as physical injuries, bigamy, adultery or concubinage, or should it be given a latitudinarian interpretation as referring to any offense causing marital discord?

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 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 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" (People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694, 704).

In the Frarcisco case, the wife, as a rebuttal witness, was allowed to testify against the husband who was charged with having killed his son and who testified that it was the wife who killed their son.

We think that the correct rule, which may be adopted in this jurisdiction, is that laid down in Cargill v. State, 35 ALR 133, 220 Pac. 64, 25 Okl. 314, wherein the court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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"

Using the criterion thus judiciously enunciated in the Cargill case, it can be concluded that in the law of evidence the rape perpetrated by the father against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife (the victim’s mother). **

That conclusion is in harmony with the practices and traditions of the Filipino family where, normally, the daughter is close to the mother who, having breast-fed and reared her offspring, is always ready to render her counsel and assistance in time of need. Indeed, when the daughter is in distress or suffers moral or physical pain, she usually utters the word Inay (Mother) before she invokes the name of the Lord.

Thus, in this case, when Avelino Ordoño, after having raped his daughter Leonora in the early morning of October 11, 1970, tried to repeat the beastly act in the evening of that date, Leonora shouted "Mother" and, on hearing that word, Avelino desisted.

That the rape of the daughter by the father, an undeniably abominable and revolting crime with incestuous implications, positively undermines the connubial relationship, is a proposition too obvious to require much elucidation.

In Wilkinson v. People, 282 Pac. 257, it was held that the wife was a competent witness against the husband in a prosecution for rape committed by the husband against his stepdaughter, who is the wife’s natural daughter because the crime was "an outrage upon nature in its dearest and tenderest relations as well as a crime against humanity itself." The court adopted the interpretation that "a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other" may refer to a crime where the wife is the individual particularly and directly injured or affected by the crime for which the husband is being prosecuted (See Dill v. People, 19 Colo. 469, 475, 36 Pac. 229, 232).

In State v. Chambers, 87 Iowa 1, 53 N.W. 1090, it was held under the statutory provision that husband or wife shall in no case be a witness for or against the other, except in a criminal proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other, that the wife was competent to testify against the husband in a case where he was prosecuted for incest committed against his stepdaughter.

In State v. Shultz, 177 Iowa 321, 158 N.W. 539, it was held that the wife may testify against the husband in a case where he was prosecuted for incest committed against their eleven-year old daughter because incest is a "crime committed against the wife." (See Owens v. State, 32 Neb. 167, 49 N.W. 226; Lord v. State, 23 N.W. 507, 17 Neb. 526; People v. Segura, 60 Phil. 933).

The trial court did not err in holding that Catalina Ordoño could testify against her husband, Avelino Ordoño, in the case where he is being tried for having raped their daughter, Leonora.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makalintal, C.J. Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Esguerra, Fernandez and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., is on sick leave.

Endnotes:



** As noted by Wigmore, the marital disqualification rule consists of two parts: (1) the incapacity of one spouse to testify for the other, a disqualification designed to obviate perjury, and (2) the privilege of one spouse not to testify against the other, a right designed to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness (U.S. v. Concepcion, 31 Phil. 182, 187; 2 Wigmore on Evidence 731).

Wigmore notes that the privilege has no longer any good reason for retention. "In an age which has so far rationalized, depolarized, and de-chivalrized the marital relation and the spirit of Femininity as to be willing to enact complete legal and political equality and independence of man and woman, this marital privilege is the merest anachronism, in legal theory, and an indefensible obstruction to truth, in practice." After noting that some States had abolished the privilege, the American Bar Association’s Committee on the Improvement of the Law of Evidence in 1937-38 recommended its abolition (8 Wigmore on Evidence 232).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20610 January 9, 1975 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO ESTABILLO

  • G.R. No. L-25266 January 15, 1975 - AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27097 January 17, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO R. TOLING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33535 January 17, 1975 - SERGIO M. ISADA v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34370 January 17, 1975 - CESAR SERRANO v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35284 January 17, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ROA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36276 January 17, 1975 - SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE AGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24870 January 21, 1975 - EUGENIA MANABAT VDA. DE LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23745 January 22, 1975 - LITTON MILLS WORKERS UNION-NATU v. SAMUEL F. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25756 January 24, 1975 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23455 January 27, 1975 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33646 January 28, 1975 - AMADO LACUESTA v. A. MELENCIO HERRERA

  • G.R. Nos. L-39516-17 January 28, 1975 - ROSARIO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO JUAN

  • G.R. No. L-39592 January 28, 1975 - ANTONIO JAYME, ET AL. v. NESTOR ALAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22358 January 29, 1975 - PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC. v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

  • G.R. No. L-24122 January 29, 1975 - MARGARITO SAUSI v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30961 January 29, 1975 - DBP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39386 and L-39620-29 January 29, 1975 - FLORENTINA NUGUID VDA. DE HABERER v. FEDERICO MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34497 January 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. BENJAMIN K. ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37633 January 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICISIMO MEDROSO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-37937 January 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS G. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38964 January 31, 1975 - SAVORY LUNCHEONETTE v. LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39012 January 31, 1975 - AVELINO ORDOÑO v. ANGEL DAQUIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40004 January 31, 1975 - BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.