(d) Spouses

Rationale<br>

• There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
• If one were to testify against the other, there is a consequent danger of perjury;
• Policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence of private life, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
• Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other [Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)]

Spouses as Parties

General Rule: Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly.

Waiver of Disqualification<br>

If one spouse imputes the commission of a crime against the other, the latter may testify against the former. [People v. Francisco, G.R. No. L-568 (1947)]

Spouses as Co-Accused<br>

The other cannot be called as an adverse party witness under this Rule

Disqualifications by Reason of Privileged Communications; Rule on Third Parties

Waiver<br>

• Failure of the spouse to object; or
• Calling spouse as witness on cross examination
• Any conduct constructed as implied consent. [Herrera]

The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness. The incompetency is waived by failure to make a timely objection to the admission of spouse’s testimony [People v. Pasensoy, G. R. No. 140634 (2002)]

Reasons:

• There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
• If one were to testify for or against the other, there is the consequent danger of perjury;
• The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence of private life and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness;
• Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one spouse by the testimony of the other (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143349, 2005)

Requisites:

• Spouses are legally married; and
• Either spouse must be a party to a case

Reason for the Exceptions:

Where the martial and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved or 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 nonexistent. (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143349, 2005)

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 committed by one against the other. (People v. Castañeda, G.R. No. L-46306, 1979)

Indeed, in those jurisdictions which allow one spouse to be subjected to examination by the adverse party as a hostile witness when both spouses are parties to the action, either the interests of the spouses are separate or separable, or the spouse offered as a witness is merely a formal or nominal party. (Lezama v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L25643, 1968)

Note: The marital disqualification rule under Rule 130, Sec. 23 has been amended: The words “for or against the affected spouse” became just “against the other” in line with the rule’s purpose to foster marital harmony. There lies no compelling rationale for extending the disqualification to testimony “for” the affected spouse. The disqualification should be limited to “adverse spousal testimony.”

To whom the privilege belongs

The privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is given.

Surviving Spouse

Surviving spouse is not only a partner in the conjugal partnership but it also an heir of deceased. (Guzman v. Limcolioc, G.R. No. L-46320, 1939)