People v.

Francisco
GR No. L-568 || Jul 16, 1947
HILADO, J.

CASE DOCTRINE (with reference to the topic in the syllabus)

When the appellant gave his testimony in his defense, the State had the right to rebut the new matter contained in that
testimony consisting in the imputation upon his wife of the death of his son regardless of the prohibition against spouses
testifying for or against each other.

SUMMARY:
Francisco confessed to killing his wife and his son immediately after the killing happened, executing an affidavit signed
and sworn before the justice of peace. However, almost a year later, he repudiated his confession and alleged that he
only swore to the contents of the affidavit because Pimentel, the sergeant who accompanied him to his house, threatened
to shoot him. He also imputed his son’s death to his wife. The relevant issue presented in this case is whether his wife’s
testimony is admissible, considering the prohibition against wife and husband testifying for or against each other. The
Court held that his wife’s testimony is admissible. Since he introduced a new matter in his defense, which is the
imputation of the crime upon his wife, it was within the right of the State to rebut the new matter. The rebuttal evidence,
which was rendered necessary by Francisco’s own testimony, could be furnished only by his wife who, as he fully knew,
was alone with him and their son at the precise place and time of the event.

FACTS:
● Francisco, herein defendant, was being held as a detention prisoner for charges of robbery in the municipal jail of
Mansalay, Mindoro. He requested permission from the chief of police to go home to ee his wife about the
procurement of a bail for his provisional release. The same was granted and he was allowed to go with sergeant
Pimentel.
○ Pimentel allowed Francisco to see his wife, who was in a room of said house, while the sergeant
remained at the foot of the stairs.
○ Pimentel suddenly heard a scream of a woman and when he went to check what was happening, he saw
Francisco’s wife holding her right breast which was already bleeding. Pimentel thereafter saw Francsico
lying down with his son, Romeo, aged one year and a half. Francisco had a wound in his belly while
Romeo had a wound in his back. The child was found dead.
● An affidavit signed and sworn by appellant before the justice of the peace is what was mainly discussed in this
case. In this affidavit, Francisco basically confessed to doing the crime of parricide. He explained that he
remembered what his uncle and father-in-law told him, the former saying that he would kill Francisco for bring
dishonor and shame to their family, and the latter telling him that he should rather die than live in shame for
having dishonored his family’s wife.
○ He said that he took the scissors near his wife, stabbed his wife,son, and then himself, deciding that he
wanted to wipe out his family.
○ The justice of the peace and Pimentel testified to the voluntariness and spontaneity of such confession.
● However, almost a year later, Francisco repudiated the confession and alleged that Pimentel threatened to shoot
him if he did not swear to the contents of said affidavit.
○ Francisco also began to impute his son’s death to his wife, further claiming that he only wounded his wife
as the result of the obfuscation produced by his child’s death.
● Among other things, Francisco impugns the admissibility of his wife’s testimony, invoking the provision of Section
26(d) of Rule 123, prohibiting the wife and husband from testifying for or aganst each other.

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 126, PROF. AVENA

 RULING RATIO

WON Francisco’s wife is qualified to testify
against him? -- YES
● When the appellant gave his testimony in his defense, the
State had the right to rebut the new matter contained in that
testimony consisting in the imputation upon his wife of the
death of his son regardless of the prohibition against spouses
testifying for or against each other.
○ Instead of simply arguing that he did not commit the
crime of parricide, Francisco introduced a new matter.
The wife only testified against her husbad after the
latter, testifying in his own defense, imputed the crime
upon her.
○ The husband must have expected that the most
natural reaction to him testifying against his wife woul
be for the prosecution to deny, upon rebuttal, the new
matter involed in the same testimony. He must be
taken to have waived all objection to his wife’s
testimony upon rebuttal the moment he made such
imputation.
○ Justice would be partial and one-sided if both the
State and the wife were to be absolutely precluded
from introducing the latter’s rebutting testimony.
○ Furthermore, drawing from Wharton’s explanation of
marital incompetency, which primarily pertained to
spouses testifying as each other’s witness, the State is
also entitled to question the spouse, as rebuttal, as to
all matters egrmane and pertinent to the direct
testimony.
○ After all, the rebuttal evidence, which was rendered
necessary by Francisco’s own testimony, could be
furnished only by his wife who, as he fully knew, was
alone with him and their son at the precise place and
time of the event.

DISPOSITIVE:
As above modified, the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 126, PROF. AVENA