1. Juan Francisco was convicted of killing his 1 1/2 year old son. He claimed his wife wounded the child, who died as a result.
2. At trial, Francisco's defense counsel argued his wife should not be allowed to testify against him due to marital privilege.
3. The court held the wife could testify against her husband in this case as an exception. The marital relationship was so strained due to the killing of their son that testifying would not violate the purpose of preserving marital harmony and privacy.
1. Juan Francisco was convicted of killing his 1 1/2 year old son. He claimed his wife wounded the child, who died as a result.
2. At trial, Francisco's defense counsel argued his wife should not be allowed to testify against him due to marital privilege.
3. The court held the wife could testify against her husband in this case as an exception. The marital relationship was so strained due to the killing of their son that testifying would not violate the purpose of preserving marital harmony and privacy.
Original Description:
Case Digest (Evidence-Disqualification by Reason of Marriage)
1. Juan Francisco was convicted of killing his 1 1/2 year old son. He claimed his wife wounded the child, who died as a result.
2. At trial, Francisco's defense counsel argued his wife should not be allowed to testify against him due to marital privilege.
3. The court held the wife could testify against her husband in this case as an exception. The marital relationship was so strained due to the killing of their son that testifying would not violate the purpose of preserving marital harmony and privacy.
1. Juan Francisco was convicted of killing his 1 1/2 year old son. He claimed his wife wounded the child, who died as a result.
2. At trial, Francisco's defense counsel argued his wife should not be allowed to testify against him due to marital privilege.
3. The court held the wife could testify against her husband in this case as an exception. The marital relationship was so strained due to the killing of their son that testifying would not violate the purpose of preserving marital harmony and privacy.
RULE 130 Section 22—Disqualification by reason of Marriage
People v Francisco PARRICIDE
FACTS: Juan Francisco was convicted of Parricide by the CFI of Mindoro for killing his 1 ½ year old son.
Francisco was a detention prisoner. He was allowed to go and visit his family with Sergeant Pacific Pimentel, who was detailed to guard him.
Upon reaching their house, Sergeant Pimentel remained at the foot of the stairs while Francisco was allowed to see his wife.
A few moments had passed when he heard a woman scream. Sergeant Pimentel ran upstairs where he saw Francisco’s wife running out of the room, her hands on her right breast which was bleeding. Moments later, he saw defendant lying down with his son Romeo. Defendant had a wound on his belly while his son had a wound in the back. Romeo was found dead.
During trial, Francisco imputed upon his wife the wounding of their child, who died as a consequence thereof, he admitted that he did not tell this to the justice of the peace of Mansalay (p. 18, ibid.), and the reason he assigned for this passive conduct on his part to the effect that he was afraid of Pimentel.
His wife made a rebuttal-testimony.
Defense counsel impugns the admissibility of the testimony of appellant's wife, invoking the provision of Section 26 (d) of Rule 123 prohibiting the wife and the husband from testifying for or against each other.
ISSUE: WON Francisco’s wife may testify against him
HELD: YES!!! She may testify against his absent. As an exception to the rule on marital disqualification 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 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. ALBIOLA, Maria Dariz G.
At any rate, in the instant case the wife did not testify in the direct evidence for the prosecution but under circumstances presently to be stated. It will be noted that the wife only testified against her husband after the latter, testifying in his own defense, imputed upon her the killing of their son.
