W/N there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Judge to have allowed the wife to testify

against the husband.

1. There is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Judge allowing the wife to testify
against the husband, on the grounds that:

A. Section 22, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court on the disqualification of testimonial
evidence by reason of marriage provides “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.”
i. In this case, Christine Vole is the wife of the accused, therefore, spousal
immunity should be invoked under the above-mentioned article.
ii. Whereby in the case of Ancog vs. Tan, the Supreme Court said “nor do we
agree with it that "had the wife of accused Mate been presented before
respondent during the preliminary investigation, this complaint would have
no leg to stand on." In the first place, Mate is not an accused in the estafa
case but the complainant. The wife referred to is the wife of accused Lito
Mirelles who, however, cannot testify against her husband without his
consent.”
iii. The Court erred when Christine was permitted to proceed when the defense
expressly objected to her taking the witness stand, disregarding the fact that
there was no consent given by the affected spouse, which in this case is the
accused.

B. Article 26 of the Family Code provides for the presumption of the validity of
marriage, “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with
the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as
such, shall also be valid in this country x x x”
i. Marriage is an "inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family;"
as such, it "shall be protected by the State.", therefore, marriage should be
presumed valid unless there is a judicial declaration of nullity.
ii. As provided in the case of Mercado vs. Tan, “the fact that the first marriage
is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge, as to the
voidable marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a
marriage before contracting the second marriage…”
iii. In this case, the Court allowed the testimony on the basis that Christine
Vole was married to a German man when she wed Leonard; the prosecution
providing the marriage license certifying the existence of her marriage to a
certain Otto Ludwig Helm celebrated in Breslau on 18 April 1942,
implicating that (1) her marriage with Leonard was void, (2) she is a fraud
for making Leonard Vole believe in good faith that she was single at the
time of their marriage, rendering their marriage voidable. While there may
 be circumstances that may render a marriage null and void, the
determination thereof does not depend on the parties themselves. The
evidence of circumstances thereof should be recognized by the court
beforehand.
C. Section 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court states that “All agreements or admissions
made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and
signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the
accused. x x x”
i. As penned by the then SC Justice Panganiban in the case Tiu vs. Middleton,
“Pre-trial is an essential device for the speedy disposition of disputes.
Hence, parties cannot brush it aside as a mere technicality. Where the pre-
trial brief does not contain the names of witnesses and the synopses of their
testimonies as required by the Rules of Court, the trial court, through its pre-
trial order, may bar the witnesses from testifying. However, an order
allowing the presentation of unnamed witnesses may no longer be modified
during the trial, without the consent of the parties affected.”
ii. In the case at bar, the only witnesses and evidences mentioned (1) Chief
Inspector Hearne of the Criminal Investigation Department of the New
Scotland Yard presenting the police evidence; (2) testimony evidence from
Janet McKenzie, the housekeeper; (3) evidence from medical and
laboratory experts; and (4) Mrs. French’s woman solicitor who drew her
final will. The prosecution concluded their presentation with a “surprise”
witness Christine Vole whom was not included in the initial statement of
the prosecution, and made her a witness on the basis of a void marriage and
a marriage certificate, none other. Should the defense have known
beforehand that Christine Vole, the spouse of the accused, was a witness for
the prosecution, the accused would be given his constitutional right to have
due process of law.
D. Finally, the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution provides for the due process of
law, and speedy disposition of cases:

“Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. x x x
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”

i. The purpose of a pre-trial is to have a speedy disposition of disputes. The

Judge’s decision to allow the testimony of Christine be heard even though
she was not in the list presented by the prosecution contradicts the
constitutional mandate to uphold the right of the people, which in this case,
the right of the accused to due process of law and speedy disposition of his
case.
 In conclusion, there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Judge as the
above-mentioned facts and the articles provided for in the Constitution was not upheld by
his Court.

Ancog v. Tan, A.M. No. MTJ-93-753, October 12, 1993

Mercado v. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000
Tiu v. Middleton, G.R. No. 134998, July 19, 1999
1987 Constitution
Family Code of the Philippines
Rules of Court