TITLE: People vs.

Santos
CITATION: 501 SCRA 325, G.R. No. 172322 September 8, 2006
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Mental Incapacity or Immaturity

FACTS:
X was charged with Rape in an Information for allegedly sexually assaulting 5-year-old Y. The victim,
who was already six years old when she testified in court, positively identified the X during the trial
and testified on the affidavit she executed before the police officers. X wanted to impeach the credibility
of the victim. If you are the judge, will you admit the testimony of Y?

ANSWER:
Yes.

Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence considering that no
young woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination
of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.

In the case at bar, it is beyond the mind-set of a six-year old child to fabricate a malicious accusation
against X if the crime did not truly transpire.

Thus, Y’s testimony will be admitted.

TITLE: Lezama vs. Rodriguez
CITATION: 23 SCRA 1166, No. L-25643 June 27, 1968
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Marital Disqualification

FACTS:
X Co. filed an action for the annulment of a judgment rendered against it. The complaint charges
“fraudulent conspiracy” on the part of the spouses H and W and one M to make it appear that the X
Co. was indebted to M.

W is called upon to testify as an adverse party witness on the basis of her following participation in
the alleged fraudulent scheme: “that it was W who, as Secretary of the company, signed the minutes
of the meeting during which H was allegedly authorized to negotiate the loan and that it was she who
made the entry in the books of the corporation.”

H and W objected invoking that a husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her
consent; nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, except in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other.

Is the objection proper?

ANSWER:
Yes.

The general rule is that a wife cannot be examined “for or against her husband without his consent.”
However, “when husband and wife are parties to an action, there is no reason why either may not be
examined as a witness for or against himself or herself alone,” and his or her testimony could
operate only against himself or herself.

However, in this case, the interests of H and W are interrelated since the main charge is collusive
fraud between the spouses and a third person. Whether W’s testimony will turn out to be adverse or
beneficial to her own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her against her husband.

Thus, the objection is proper.

TITLE: Alvarez vs. Ramirez
CITATION: 473 SCRA 72, G.R. No. 143439 October 14, 2005
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Marital Disqualification

FACTS:
A complaint for arson was filed against H by Y (sister of the H’s estranged wife, W) for allegedly setting
fire to the house of his sister-in-law knowing fully well that his wife was there. The private prosecutor
called W to the witness stand as the first witness against H, her husband. H filed a motion to disqualify
W from testifying against him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital
disqualification. If you are the judge, will you grant the motion?

ANSWER:
No.

One of the purposes of marital disqualification provided in Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
of Court 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.

In the case at bar, the relationship between H and W was already strained prior to the commission of
the offense. Consequently, the preservation of the marriage between H and W is no longer an interest
the State aims to protect.

Thus, the motion to disqualify must be denied.