Pp v.

Publico
17 CAR (2s) 703 (1972)

Ateees and kuyaaas, ghost case kay wala gyud nag-exist sa everywhere. Naa mugawas nga
Publico pero about man rape2x. Pramis ako gyud g-tarung search pero wala gyud ning Publico
nga Papapapa, Mamamama, ug Anak-anak. Maskin sa lawphil nga by date kay wala ni nga
Publico sa 1972. So, ang digest nalang sa Ateneo ako g-use.  Ayaw ko labara, Famador.

Facts:

 At about noontime of August 1, 1965, herein appellant Aurelio Publico was walking
towards his home on a road at Catotoran, Camalaniugan, Cagayan.
 When Publico reached the store of the spouses Valdez, he came along now deceased
Alfredo Lagat and Leonardo Publico, who were engaged in a heated altercation.
 Lagat remarked to Publico: “Are you another one?”
 Publico replied by saying “no” and then he continued in his way but Lagat followed him
and boxed him at the back of his waist line.
 Lagat unsheathed his bolo from his waist. Fearing that Lagat would attack him with his
weapon, the Publico ran away but Lagat chased him so he jumped over an about two-
-foot high barb wire fence.
 Eventually, after a chase, Publico looked back and he saw that Lagat was already near
him. He turned around. At that time, Lagat was in the act of stabbing him with a bolo. In
the end, Publico stabbed Lagat. Publico surrendered to the police authorities with the
bolo with which he stabbed Lagat.
 The lower court rejected Lagat’s plea of self-defense. To further disprove Publico’s claim
of self-defense, the prosecution cites the testimony of defense witness Patrolman
Urmatan who said that the wife and children of Publico said that the bolo used was
indeed the bolo they were using in the kitchen.

Issue:

Whether or not such testimony of the patrolman as to the declarations of the wife and children
may be admitted?

Held:

NO.
 It is unjust to admit in evidence against the appellant the alleged information
supposedly given to Patrolman Urmatan by Publico’s wife and child for the said information is
in the nature of evidence against the Publico. Insofar as the information allegedly given by the
wife is concerned, the same is covered by the evidentiary rule of exclusion that a wife cannot
be examined for or against her husband without his consent. Insofar as the supposed
information allegedly given by the child is concerned, the same is covered by the exclusionary
rule of evidence that no descendant can be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his
parents and ascendants.