Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > October 2005 Decisions > G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez. :

G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez.



[G.R. NO. 143439 October 14, 2005]

MAXIMO ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. SUSAN RAMIREZ, Respondent.



Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated May 31, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56154, entitled "Susan Ramirez, Petitioner, versus, Hon. Benjamin M. Aquino, Jr., as Judge RTC, Malabon, MM, Br. 72, and Maximo Alvarez, Respondents."

Susan Ramirez, herein respondent, is the complaining witness in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN for arson3 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Malabon City. The accused is Maximo Alvarez, herein petitioner. He is the husband of Esperanza G. Alvarez, sister of respondent.

On June 21, 1999, the private prosecutor called Esperanza Alvarez to the witness stand as the first witness against petitioner, her husband. Petitioner and his counsel raised no objection.

Esperanza testified as follows:


We are calling Mrs. Esperanza Alvarez, the wife of the accused, Your Honor.


Swear in the witness.

x x x


Your Honor, we are offering the testimony of this witness for the purpose of proving that the accused Maximo Alvarez committed all the elements of the crime being charged particularly that accused Maximo Alvarez pour on May 29, 1998 gasoline in the house located at Blk. 5, Lot 9, Phase 1-C, Dagat-dagatan, Navotas, Metro Manila, the house owned by his sister-in-law Susan Ramirez; that accused Maximo Alvarez after pouring the gasoline on the door of the house of Susan Ramirez ignited and set it on fire; that the accused at the time he successfully set the house on fire (sic) of Susan Ramirez knew that it was occupied by Susan Ramirez, the members of the family as well as Esperanza Alvarez, the estranged wife of the accused; that as a consequence of the accused in successfully setting the fire to the house of Susan Ramirez, the door of said house was burned and together with several articles of the house, including shoes, chairs and others.


You may proceed.

x x x



x x x

Q: When you were able to find the source, incidentally what was the source of that scent?cralawlibrary

A: When I stand by the window, sir, I saw a man pouring the gasoline in the house of my sister (and witness pointing to the person of the accused inside the court room).

Q: For the record, Mrs. Witness, can you state the name of that person, if you know?cralawlibrary

A: He is my husband, sir, Maximo Alvarez.

Q: If that Maximo Alvarez you were able to see, can you identify him?cralawlibrary

A: Yes, sir.

Q: If you can see him inside the Court room, can you please point him?cralawlibrary

A: Witness pointing to a person and when asked to stand and asked his name, he gave his name as Maximo Alvarez."4

In the course of Esperanza's direct testimony against petitioner, the latter showed "uncontrolled emotions," prompting the trial judge to suspend the proceedings.

On June 30, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion5 to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital disqualification.

Respondent filed an opposition6 to the motion. Pending resolution of the motion, the trial court directed the prosecution to proceed with the presentation of the other witnesses.

On September 2, 1999, the trial court issued the questioned Order disqualifying Esperanza Alvarez from further testifying and deleting her testimony from the records.7 The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in the other assailed Order dated October 19, 1999.8

This prompted respondent Susan Ramirez, the complaining witness in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN, to file with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari9 with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.10

On May 31, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision nullifying and setting aside the assailed Orders issued by the trial court.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari .

The issue for our resolution is whether Esperanza Alvarez can testify against her husband in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN.

Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

"Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. '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."

The reasons given for the rule are:

1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;

2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of perjury;

3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; andcralawlibrary

4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other.11

But like all other general rules, the marital disqualification rule has its own exceptions, both in civil actions between the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound reasons which, in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule. For instance, 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 non-existent. 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.12

In Ordoño v. Daquigan,13 this Court held:

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

'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 committee (by) one against the other. '"

Obviously, the 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.

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:

"The act of private respondent in setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law Susan Ramirez, knowing fully well that his wife was there, and in fact with the alleged intent of injuring the latter, is an act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of marital relation which the disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The criminal act complained of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. It underscored the fact that the marital and domestic relations between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved. The Supreme Court has held that in such a case, identity is non-existent. In such a situation, the security and confidences of private life which the law aims to protect are nothing but ideals which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. (People v. Castañeda, 271 SCRA 504). Thus, there is no longer any reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule."

It should be stressed that as shown by the records, prior to the commission of the offense, the relationship between petitioner and his wife was already strained. In fact, they were separated de facto almost six months before the incident. Indeed, the evidence and facts presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage between petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an interest the State aims to protect.

At this point, it bears emphasis that 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, because (as stated by this Court in Francisco14), "it was the latter himself who gave rise to its necessity."

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The trial court, RTC, Branch 72, Malabon City, is ordered to allow Esperanza Alvarez to testify against petitioner, her husband, in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN. Costs against petitioner.



1 Under Rule 45, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

2 Penned by Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion.

3 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 19933-MN and captioned "People of the Philippines v. Maximo Alvarez".

4 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), June 21, 1999 at 3-7.

5 Rollo at 44-47.

6 Id. at 48-58.

7 Id. at 85-87.

8 Id. at 88.

9 Under Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended.

10 Rollo at 101-134.

11 People of the Philippines v. Francisco, No. L-568, July 16, 1947, 78 Phil. 694, and Cargill v. State, 220, Pac., 64, 65; 25 Okl. Cr., 314; 35 A.L.R., 133.

12 People of the Philippines v. Francisco, id.

13 No. L-39012, January 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 270.

14 Supra.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

October-2005 Jurisprudence                 


  • A.C. No. 5424 - Antonio B. Baltazar v. Atty. Norbin P. Dimalanta.

  • A.C. No. 6396 - Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao v. Atty. Virgil R. Castro.

  • A.M. NO. 05-9-555-RTC - Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Cecilia L. Asilo, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 151.

  • A.M. No. 04-11-671-RTC - Re: Findings of Irregularity on the Bundy Cards of Personnel of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26 and Municipal Trial Court Medina, Misamis Oriental.

  • A.M. No. 98-12-394-RTC - RE: Case Left Undecided by Retired Judge Benjamin A. Bongolan.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1324 - Joaquin Roberto Gozun, et al. v. Judge Vinci G. Gozum.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1573 - Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court of Tambulig and the 11th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mahayag-Dumingag-Josefina, Both in Zamboanga Del Sur.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1579 - Eduardo C. Dayuno v. Judge Hector B. Barillo, et al.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1586 - Letter Dated November 12, 2004 of Judge Adolfo R. Malingan.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1599 - Maribeth M. Ora v. Judge Romeo A. Almajar.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 - Patricio T. Junio v. Judge Pedro C. River, Jr.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1603 - Jaime R. Sevilla v. Judge Edison F. Quintin.

  • ADM. MATTER NO. P-03-1669 - Jonolito S. Orasa v. Manuel S. Seva.

  • A. M. No. P-04-1904 - Miramar Fish Co., Inc. v. Bienvenido Jalon, et al.

  • A.M. No. P-04-1911 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Aster A. Madela.

  • A. M. No. P-04-1921 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Fely C. Carriedo.

  • A.M. No. P-05-19966 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Melecio T. Ramos.

  • A.M. No. P-05-1983 - Judge Alpino P. Florendo v. Edmar C. Cadano.

  • A. M. No. P-05-1989 - Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the MCTC-Mabalacat, Pampanga.

  • A.M. No. P-05-1994 - Alleged Removal of the Bailbond Posted in Criminal Case No. C-67629.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2013 - Linda Ramos v. Linda C. Esteban.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2069 - P/Capt. Romeo M. De Guzman v. Maripi A. Apolonio.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2080 - RE: Habitual Tardiness of Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2086 - RE: Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe P. Brooks, et al.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1647 - Wong Jan Realty, Inc. v. Hon. Judge Dolores L. Espa ol.

  • A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1713 and A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ - Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1794 Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-941-RTJ - P/Supt. Manuel P. Barcena v. Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon. d

  • ADM. MATTER NO. RTJ-04-1848 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1804-RTJ - Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. Hon. Romulo A. Lopez.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-04-1890 - Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal v. Judge Rogelio C. Sescon.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1960 - Juvelyn D. Kilat v. Judge Mariano S. Macias.

  • G.R. No. 122472 - Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al.

  • G.R. No. 125254 - Spouses Samuel Ulep, et al. v. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 106064 - Spouses Renato Constanino, Jr., et al. v. Hon. Jose B. Cuisia, et al.

  • G.R. No. 132537 - Mary Josephine Gomez et al., v. Roel Sta. Ines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 132759 - Alejandro Danan, et al. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 134113 - Air France Philippines v. The Honorable Judge Emilio L. Leachon, et al.

  • G.R. No. 132864 - Philippine Free Press, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 138550 - American Express International Inc., v. Noel Cordero.

  • G.R. No. 139448 - Jacinto Galang, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 139526 - Ramatek Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ma. Anela De Los Reyes.

  • G.R. No. 139736 - Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

  • G.R. No. 141715 - Local Superior of the Servants of Charity, Inc., et al. v. Jody King Construction & Development Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 139858 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Arturo Tulio.

  • G.R. NO. 142664 - Leoncio Ho, et al. v. Pedro S. Lacsa.

  • G.R. No. 142411 - Winifreda Ursal v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 143027 - Encarnacion L. Cuizon, et al. v. Mercedes C. Remoto, et al.

  • G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez.

  • G.R. No. 143951 - Norma Mangaliag, et al. v. Hon. Edelwina Catubig-Pastoral, et al.

  • G.R. NO. 144273 - Rodolfo Ramos, et al. v. Hon. Judge Alfonso V. Combong, Jr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 145259 - Casimiro R. Nadela v. Engineering and Construction Corporation of Asia.

  • G.R. No. 145330 - Spouses Gomer Ramos, et al. v. Spouses Santiago Heruela, et al.

  • G.R. No. 146400 - Bernardito A. Florido v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 146987 - Metro Properties, Inc. v. Magallanes Village Association, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 147746 - Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc., et al. v. Sps. Gaudencio Sarangaya III, et al.

  • G.R. No. 147911 - Federico B. Diamante III v. Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 148574 - Eugenio G. Palileo, et al. v. National Irrigation Administration.

  • G.R. No. 149175 - Jaime H. Domingo v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 149259 - People of the Philippines v. Juanito P. Quirol, et al.

  • G.R. No. 151040 - Allied Banking Corporation v. Cheng Yong, et al.

  • G.R. No. 151818 - Oriental Petroleum, et al. v. Marciano V. Fuentes, et al.

  • G.R. No. 151893 - Precy P. Jacang v. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 152527 - Joey Guiyab y Danao v. People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 152689 and G.R. NO. 154072 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc., et al. v. Alfredo S. Paguio.

  • G.R. No. 153152 - Ruperto V. Peralta, et al. v. Hon. Aniano Desierto, et al.

  • G.R. 153526 - Florante Soriquez v. Sandiganbayan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 153784 - Romeo C. Cadiz, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154027 - Spouses Ramon and Rosita Tan v. Gorgonia Bantegui, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154087 - Milagros Ilao-Quianay, et al. v. Rodolfo Mapile.

  • G.R. No. 154190 - MIAA-NAIA Association of Service Operators v. The Ombudsman, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154126 - Allied Banking Corporation v. The Quezon City Government, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154380 - Republic of the Philippines v. Cipriano Orbecido III.

  • G.R. No. 154410 - Heavylift Manila, Inc., et al. v. The Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154428 - Philippine National Bank v. Shellink Planners, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 154629 - SPO4 Marino Soberano, et al. v. The People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 154798 - Crystal Shipping, Inc., et al. v. Deo P. Natividad.

  • G.R. No. 154993 - Luz R. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 155279 - Micro Sales Operation Network, et al. v. The National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155737 - R Transport Corporation v. Philippine Hawk Transport Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 155784 - Civil Service Commission v. Ranulfo P. Albao.

  • G.R. No. 156033 - Expresscredit Financing Corporation v. Sps. Morton and Juanita Velasco.

  • G.R. No. 156081 - Ferdinand T. Santos, et al. v. Wilson Go.

  • G.R. No. 156381 - JSS Indochina Corporation v. Gerardo R. Ferrer, et al.

  • G.R. No. 156652 - Dr. Benita F. Osorio v. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, et al.

  • G.R. No. 156887 - Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Hon. Amalia F. Dy, et al.

  • G.R. No. 157604 - George V. Benedicto v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 157044 - Rodolfo V. Rosales, et al. v. Miguel Castelltort, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158227 - Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc. v. Philip Adao.

  • G.R. No. 158085 - Republic of the Philippines, et al. v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada.

  • G.R. No. 158674 - Lapreciosisma Cagungun, et al. v. Planters Development Bank.

  • G.R. No. 158812 - Public Estates Authority, et al. v. Bolinao Security and Investigation Service, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 159048 - Benny Go v. Eliodoro Bacaron.

  • G.R. No. 159592 - Spouses Ferdinand Aguilar, et al. v. Citytrust Finance Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 160073 - Abundio Barayoga, et al. v. Asset Privatization Trust.

  • G.R. No. 159831 - Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. John Bordman Ltd. of Iloilo, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 160283 - John Kam Biak Y. Chan, Jr., v. Iglesia ni Cristo Inc.

  • G.R. No. 160573 - Grace A. Basmayor v. Loida B. Atencio.

  • G.R. No. 160966 - Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 161026 - Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corporation v. Goldstar Elevators, Phils., Inc.

  • G.R. No. 161733 - Civil Service Commission v. Arnulfo A. Sebastian.

  • G.R. No. 161942 - Jose M. Caringal v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

  • G.R. No. 162070 - Department of Agrarian Reform v. Delia T. Sutton, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161997 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine National Bank.

  • G.R. No. 162445 - Dionisio L. Bacarra v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163099 - Amadeo Fishing Corporation, et al. v. Romeo Nierra, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163181 - Bonifacio L. Ca'al, Sr. v. People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 163818 - Sebastian Serag, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164588 - Nautica Canning Corporation, et al. v. Roberto C. Yumul.

  • G.R. No. 164282 - Teresita M. Yujuico v. Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 164678 - Office of the Ombudsman v. Mary Ann T. Castro.

  • G.R. No. 164736 - Universal Robina Corporation, et al. v. Benito Catapang, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164914 - Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Hon. Mauricio M. Rivera, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164978 - Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al. v. Exec. Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164922 - Raymond P. Espidol v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165282 - Electro System Industries Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165996 - Rodolfo G. Valencia v. The Sandiganbayan.

  • G.R. No. 166152 - Villamor Golf Club, et al. v. Rodolfo F. Pehid.

  • G.R. No. 166379 - Lakpue Drug, Inc., et al. v. Ma. Lourdes Belga.

  • G.R. No. 166664 - Domingo C. Suarez v. Leo B. Saul, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166964 - Patricia L. Tiongson, et al. v. National Housing Authority.

  • G.R. No. 167462 - Manly Express Inc., et al. v. Romualdo Payong, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 167514 - Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and Promotions, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 167886 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pamintuan Development Co.

  • G.R. No. 168056 - ABAKADA Guro Party List Officer Samson S. Alcantara, et al. v. The Hon. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita.