This is a case of falsification of public document. The
document falsified was a Deed of Sale of a house and lot. The one who falsified
was the husband knowing very well that the object sold was a conjugal property
in need of mutual consent in order to effect a valid contract of sale.The one suing was the wife herself alleging that her husband executed a Deed of Sale making it appear that she the spouse gave her marital consent to the said sale.
Here’s the court scene. Prosecution called wife to the
witness stand. Defense moved to disqualify her as a witness invoking Sec. 20 of
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Prosecution defended its stand resting on the
exception to that rule. Notwithstanding such opposition the respondent judge
favored the husband and granted the defense’ motion to disqualify the wife to
testify.
Sorry, due to constraint of time, I didn’t include much paragraphs on its case
in the CA. And I guess in doing so I must admit I’m also clueless to its
outcome, but inferring from what is normal judicial proceedings, CA must have
affirmed the lower court ruling. Hence the SC petition for Certiorari.
Two things: 1. May a crime of Falsification of Public
Document be considered as a criminal case committed by a husband against the
wife. And if it is 2. May it therefore come under the exception to the rule of the
marital disqualification.
Court answered YES.
When the offense directly attacks or impairs the conjugal
relation, then it clearly comes within the exception. You see in this case it’s
the husband’s breach of his wife’s confidence that gave rise to the offense. So
the court said “Therefore with more reason the exception must apply since the one
directly prejudiced is not a third person but the wife herself” who is a
party to the conjugal property being purported dubiously to be sold.
The wife wins this case.
