G.R. No. L-46306




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIANO C. CASTAÑEDA, JR., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch III, and BENJAMIN F. MANALOTO, respondents. Fiscal Regidor Y Aglipay and Special Counsel Vicente Macalino for petitioner. Moises Sevilla Ocampo for private petitioner. Cicero J. Punzalan for respondent. SANTOS, J.: On the basis of the complaint 1 of his wife, Victoria M. Manaloto, herein private respondent Benjamin Manaloto was charged before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, presided by respondent Judge, Hon. Mariano C. Castaneda Jr., with the crime of Falsification of Public Document committed, according to the Information, as follows: That on or about the 19th day of May, 1975, in the Municipality of San Fernando, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named a BENJAMIN F. MANALOTO, with deliberate intent to commit falsification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously counterfeit, imitate and forge the signature of his spouse Victoria M. Manaloto in a deed of sale executed by said accused wherein he sold a house and lot belonging to the conjugal partnership of said spouse in favor of Ponciano Lacsamana under Doc. No. 1957, Page No. 72, Book No. LVII, Series of 1975, notarized by Notary Public Abraham Pa. Gorospe, thereby making it appear that his spouse Victoria M. Manaloto gave her marital consent to said sale when in fact and in truth she did not. 2 At the trial, the prosecution called the complaint-wife to the witness stand but the defense moved to disqualify her as a witness, invoking Sec. 20, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules Of Court which provides: 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. xxx xxx xxx (b) A husband can not be examined for or at 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. The prosecution opposed said motion to disquality on the ground that the case falls under the exception to the rule, contending that it is a "criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other." Notwithstanding such opposition, respondent Judge granted the motion, disqualifying Victoria Manaloto from testifying for or against her husband, in an order dated March 31, 1977. A motion for reconsideration petition was filed but was denied by respondent Judge in an order dated May 19, 1977. Hence, this petition for certiorari file by the office of the Provincial Fiscal, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, seeking set aside the aforesaid order of the respondent Judge and praying that a preliminary injunction or a ternporary restraining order be issued by this Court enjoining said judge from further proceeding with the trial of aforesaid Criminal Case No. 1011. On June 20, 1977, this Court resolved — (a) to issue a temporary restraining order, and (b) to require the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the petitioner. 3 The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Notice of Appearance on June 27, 1977, 4 and its Memorandum in support of the Petition on August 30, 1977. 5 The respondents filed their Memorandum on September 5, 1977. 6 Whereupon, the case was considered submitted for decision. 7 From the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents emerges the sole issues determinative of the instant petition, to wit: Whether or not the criminal case for Falsification of Public Document filed against herein private respondent Benjamin F. Manaloto — who allegedly forged the signature of his wife, Victoria M. Manaloto, in a deed of sale, thereby making it appear that the latter gave her marital consent to the sale of a house and lot belonging to their conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth she did not — may be considered as a criminal case for a crime committed by a husband against his wife and, therefore, an exception to the rule on marital disqualification. We sustain petitioner's stand that the case is an exception to the marital disqualification rule, as a criminal case for a crime committed by the accused-husband against the witness-wife. 1. The act complained of as constituting the crime of Falsification of Public Document is the forgery by the accused of his wife's signature in a deed of sale, thereby making it appear therein that said wife consented to the sale of a house and lot belonging to their conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth she did not. It must be noted that had the sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of the wife's name by her husband in the deed of sale, been made with the consent of the wife, no crime could have been charged against said husband Clearly, therefore, it is the husband's breach of his wife's confidence which gave rise to the offense charged. And it is this same breach of trust which prompted the wife to make the necessary complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal which, accordingly, filed the aforesaid criminal case with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. To rule, therefore, that such criminal case is not one for a crime committed by one spouse against the other is to advance a conclusion which completely disregards the factual antecedents of the instant case. 2. This is not the first time that the issue of whether a specific offense may be classified as a crime committed by one spouse against the other is presented to this Court for resolution. Thus, in the case of Ordoño v. Daquigan, 8 this Court, through Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino, set up the criterion to be followed in resolving the issue, stating that: 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 64,26 OkL 314, wherein the court said: The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the is too narrow; and the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic 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. Applying the foregoing criterion in said case of Ordoño v. Daquigan this Court held that the rape committed by the husband of the witness-wife against their daughter was a crime committed by the husband against his wife. Although the victim of the crime committed by the accused in that can was not his wife but their daughter, this Court, nevertheless, applied the exception for the reason that said criminal act "Positively undermine(d) the connubial relationship. 9 With more reason must the exception apply to the instant case where the victim of the crime and the person who stands to be directly prejudiced by the falsification is not a third person but the wife herself. And it is undeniable that the act comp of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. This is apparent not only in the act Of the wife in personally lodging her complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, but also in her insistent efforts 10 in connection with the instant petition, which seeks to set aside the order disqualified her from testifying against her husband. Taken collectively, the actuations of the witness-wife underacore the fact that the martial and domestic relations between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved said nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed. In such a case, as We have occasion to point out in previous decisions, "identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that Identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidence 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. 11 Thus, there is no reason to apply the martial disqualification rule. 3. Finally, overriding considerations of public policy demand that the wife should not be disqualified from testifying against her husband in the instant case. For, as aptly observed by the Solicitor General," (t)o espouse the contrary view would spawn the dangerous precedent of a husband committing as many falsifications against his wife as he could conjure, seeking shelter in the anti-marital privilege as a license to injure and prejudice her in secret — all with unabashed and complete impunity. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the order of the lower court dated March 31, 1977, disqualifying Victoria Manaloto from testifying for or against her husband, Benjamin Manaloto, in Criminal Case No. 1011, as well as the order dated May 19, 1977, denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court is hereby lifted and the respondent Judge is hereby ordered to proceed with the trial of the case, allowing Victoria Manaloto to testify against her husband. SO ORDERED. Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur. #Footnotes 1 See Annexes "A", "B", and B-1" of the Petition (Rollo, pp- 11-15). 2 Annex "C" of the Petition (Rollo, pp. 16-17). 3 Rollo, p. 39. 4 Ibid., p. 44. 5 Ibid., p. 76. 6 Ibid., p. 87. 7 Ibid., p. 99. 8 G.R. No. L-39012, January 31, 1975,62 SCRA 270, at 273. 9 Id., p. 274. 10 Victoria Manaloto, through her counsel assisted the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga in filling the instant petition for certiorari (rollo, pp. 9-10). Furthermore, she file on Aug. 22, 1977 a memorandum in support of the petition (rollo, pp. 68-74), and, on Dec. 28, 1977, a pleading entitled Chronologically — Effected Observations and Circumstances in Support of or to Butress Memorandum for Private Petitioner Victoria M. Manaloto, dated August 18, 1977 informing this Court that the trouble in her marital relation with her husband the herein private respondent is "beyond repair." (rollo pp- 105- 108). 11 People vs. Fransisco 78 Phil 694, 704 (cited in Ordono vs. Daquigan, supra.). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation