Alvarez vs. Ramirez

7/22/2021 G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez.
: October 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
See's Candies
See's Candies
Finest, Freshest Ingredients since 1921. Shop See's Candies
Mandaluyong City
STORE INFO DIRECTIONS
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
October 2005 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > October

2005 Decisions >

G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan
ChanRobles Ramirez. :
Professional Review,
Inc.

G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 143439 October 14, 2005]

ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005octoberdecisions.php?id=1234 1/21
7/22/2021 G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez. : October 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

MAXIMO ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. SUSAN RAMIREZ,
Respondent.
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the
Decision 2 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 arson 3 pending before the

ChanRobles CPA Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Malabon City. The accused is
Review Online
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:
"ATTY. ALCANTARA:
We are calling Mrs. Esperanza Alvarez, the wife of the accused,

Your Honor.
COURT:
Swear in the witness.

ChanRobles Special
xxx
Lecture Series

ATTY. MESIAH: (sic)
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.
COURT:
You may proceed.
xxx
DIRECT EXAMINATION
ATTY. ALCANTARA:
xxx
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
Remote
him? cralawlibrary
Court
A: Witness pointing to a person and when asked to stand and
Access asked his name, he gave his name as Maximo Alvarez." 4
In the course of Esperanza's direct testimony against petitioner,

Customized For Your
the latter showed "uncontrolled emotions," prompting the trial

Court
judge to suspend the proceedings.
Remote Technologies
That Suit The Workflow
On June 30, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion 5 to

Of Your Court disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him pursuant to Rule
130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital disqualification.
courtcall.com
Respondent filed an opposition 6 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

OPEN 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
Remote
Petition for Certiorari 9 with application for preliminary injunction
Court
and temporary restraining order. 10
Access On May 31, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision

nullifying and setting aside the assailed Orders issued by the trial
Customized For Your

court.
Court
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari .
Remote Technologies
The issue for our resolution is whether Esperanza Alvarez can

That Suit The Workflow
testify against her husband in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN.

Of Your Court
Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
courtcall.com
"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
OPEN 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; and cralawlibrary
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 OrdoÃ±o 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. CastaÃ±eda, 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 Francisco 14 ), "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.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
1 Under Rule 45, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules

of Civil Procedure, as amended.
2 Penned by Justice Portia AliÃ±o-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
October-2005
Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 4920 :

October 19, 2005 -
LEOPOLDO V. CREDITO,
AARON J. VELARDE,
PEPITO JARANILLA,
MIGUEL EXITO JR., CEZAR
CRUCERO, NEMESIO
CABALLERO, RODOLFO
JALANDONI, NILO
GAVARAN, ROLANDO
BELBAR, SIXTO CRUCERO,
TALAVER ELEUTERIO,
BONIFACIO LABADIA, ELY
ERIMA

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 -

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.

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.

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 -

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
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
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.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/22/2021 G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez.

: October 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Finest, Freshest Ingredients since 1921. Shop See's Candies

STORE INFO DIRECTIONS

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

October 2005 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > October

2005 Decisions >

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

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

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the

Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals dated May 31, 2000 in CA-G.R.

Susan Ramirez, herein respondent, is the complaining witness in

Criminal Case No. 19933-MN for arson 3 pending before the

On June 21, 1999, the private prosecutor called Esperanza Alvarez

Esperanza testified as follows:

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

Swear in the witness.

You may proceed.

A: When I stand by the window, sir, I saw a man pouring the

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

Access 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

That Suit The Workflow

On June 30, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion 5 to

On September 2, 1999, the trial court issued the questioned Order

her testimony from the records. 7 The prosecution filed a motion

dated October 19, 1999. 8

This prompted respondent Susan Ramirez, the complaining witness

Access On May 31, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision

Customized For Your

The issue for our resolution is whether Esperanza Alvarez can

testify against her husband in Criminal Case No. 19933-MN.

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

3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of

4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of

punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other. 11

case, identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of

absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. 12

In OrdoÃ±o v. Daquigan, 13 this Court held:

Obviously, the offense of arson attributed to petitioner, directly

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:

"The act of private respondent in setting fire to the house of his

It should be stressed that as shown by the records, prior to the

At this point, it bears emphasis that the State, being interested in

the accused, because (as stated by this Court in Francisco 14 ), "it

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

1 Under Rule 45, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules

2 Penned by Justice Portia AliÃ±o-Hormachuelos and

3 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 19933-MN and

4 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), June 21,

9 Under Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules

11 People of the Philippines v. Francisco, No. L-568,

12 People of the Philippines v. Francisco, id.

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

Back to Home | Back to Main

A.C. No. 4920 :

A.C. No. 5424 -

Atty. Norbin P. Dimalanta.

A.C. No. 6396 - Rosalie