99 – MAXIMO ALVAREZ v.

SUSAN RAMIREZ (2005)

GR NO. 143439
VII. Qualification of Witnesses

FACTS
- Susan Ramirez is the complaining witness in a criminal case for arson against Maximo
Alvarez. Maximo is the husband of Esperanza Alvarez, the sister of Susan.
- On June 1999, the private prosecutor called Esperanza to the witness stand against
Maximo. Maximo, nor his counsel raised no objection.
- Esperanza testified that she was the wife of the accused; that Maximo poured gasoline
in their house in Navotas, owned by Susan; that after pouring gasoline, Maximo ignited
and set it on fire, knowing that it was occupied by Susan, the members of the family as
well as Esperanza, the estranged wife of Maximo; and that the door, as well as some
shoes, chairs and articles of the house were burned.
- *extra court arte* In the course of Esperanza’s testimony against Maximo, the husband
showed “uncontrolled emotions”, prompting the judge to suspend the proceedings.
- Maximo filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him, pursuant
to Rule 130 on marital disqualification, which Susan opposed.

RTC Ruling: Disqualified Esperanza from testifying and deleting her testimony from the
records. Susan appealed to the CA
CA Ruling: reversed the RTC.

ISSUE WON Esperanza can testify against her husband in the case for Arson

HELD: YES!!!
- According to Sec. 22, Rule 130, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except xxx in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants.
- The reasons for the rule are:
o Identity of interests between the spouses
o Consequent danger of perjury
o Guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, or to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness
o Danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other
- Marital disqualifications have its own exceptions. For example, 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. In such a case, the
reasons for the rule will be nothing but ideals, which would leave a void in the unhappy
home.
- According to Cargil vs. State, which is applicable in this case, when an offense directly
attacks, or directly and vitality 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.
- Obviously, the offense of arson directly impairs the conjugal relation, as the act
eradicates all major aspects of marital life such as trust, confidence, respect and
love. Such act of setting fire to the house, knowing fully well that his wife was inside,
with an intent to injure his wife, is an act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of
marital relation which the disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The relations have
become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved.
- Notably, prior to the commission of the offense, the relationship between the spouses
was already strained, as they have been separated de facto for six months. Indeed, the
evidence and facts presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage between the
spouses is no longer an interest the State aims to protect.
- 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 objection of the accused as it was Maximo himself who
gave rise to its necessity.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA is affirmed. RTC is ordered to allow Esperanza Alvarez
to testify against petitioner, her husband.