Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA for allowing the testimony of petitioner’s
wife in a criminal proceeding where petitioner was accused for ransom. Private prosecutor in the said
criminal case called the petitioner’s wife without objection from petitioner’s counsel. Wife testified that
it was her estranged husband who poured and set the house of her sister on fire. A motion to disqualify
the testimony of his wife was filed pursuant to rules on martial disqualification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the wife can testify against her husband in a criminal case.
RULING:
The reason for the rule on martial disqualification 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 confidence of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness;
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse through the
hostile testimony of the other.
The offense of arson attributed to the husband impairs the conjugal relation between him and his wife.
His act eradicates all the major aspects of marital life such as trust, confidence, respect and love by
which virtues the conjugal relationship survives and flourishes… the evidence and facts presented reveal
that the preservation of the marriage between petitioner and his wife is no longer an interest the State
aims to protect.
=========================
Dasmariñas Garments vs. Reyes/American Pres. Lines
GRN 108229 August 24, 1993
Narvasa, J.;
FACTS:
APL sued Dasmariñas Garments for sum of money at the hearing. Instead of presenting its witness, APL
filed a motion praying that it intended to take the depositions of some Taiwan nationals. The lower
court granted the deposition which was in compliance with the rules on taking of testimony by
deposition upon written interrogatories under ROC. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a party could present its evidence by taking the deposition of its witness in a foreign
jurisdiction before a private entity.
RULING:
Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts
resting in the knowledge of a party or other person which are relevant in some suit or proceeding in
court. Depositions are principally made by law to the parties as a means of informing themselves of all
the relevant facts; they are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in
open court of a party witness. Leave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before
a secretary or embassy or legation, consul gen. etc., and the defendants answer has already been
served.
Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or
convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition. Taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no
prohibition against the taking of deposition after pre-trial… the law authorizes the taking of depositions
before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of RTC “to perpetuate their testimony for use in
event of further proceedings in court… or during the process of execution of a final and executor
judgment.”
