Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    Ordono V Daquigan

    Uploaded by

    Maria Dariz Albiola
    Catalina testified against her husband Avelino in his rape trial. The defense objected under Rule 130, which prohibits spouses from testifying against each other without consent. However, the court ruled that Catalina could testify, citing precedent that an exception applies for crimes committed by one spouse against the other that "directly attack or directly and vitally impair the conjugal relation." The court found that Avelino's rape of his daughter was such a crime against his wife Catalina, as it undermined their connubial relationship. Therefore, Catalina could testify against Avelino without his consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ordono V Daquigan

    Uploaded by

    Maria Dariz Albiola
    89 views2 pages
    Catalina testified against her husband Avelino in his rape trial. The defense objected under Rule 130, which prohibits spouses from testifying against each other without consent. However, the court ruled that Catalina could testify, citing precedent that an exception applies for crimes committed by one spouse against the other that "directly attack or directly and vitally impair the conjugal relation." The court found that Avelino's rape of his daughter was such a crime against his wife Catalina, as it undermined their connubial relationship. Therefore, Catalina could testify against Avelino without his consent.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest (Evidence-Disqualification by Reason of Marriage)

    Original Title

    Ordono v Daquigan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Catalina testified against her husband Avelino in his rape trial. The defense objected under Rule 130, which prohibits spouses from testifying against each other without consent. However, the court ruled that Catalina could testify, citing precedent that an exception applies for crimes committed by one spouse against the other that "directly attack or directly and vitally impair the conjugal relation." The court found that Avelino's rape of his daughter was such a crime against his wife Catalina, as it undermined their connubial relationship. Therefore, Catalina could testify against Avelino without his consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    89 views2 pages

    Ordono V Daquigan

    Uploaded by

    Maria Dariz Albiola
    Catalina testified against her husband Avelino in his rape trial. The defense objected under Rule 130, which prohibits spouses from testifying against each other without consent. However, the court ruled that Catalina could testify, citing precedent that an exception applies for crimes committed by one spouse against the other that "directly attack or directly and vitally impair the conjugal relation." The court found that Avelino's rape of his daughter was such a crime against his wife Catalina, as it undermined their connubial relationship. Therefore, Catalina could testify against Avelino without his consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    ALBIOLA, Maria Dariz G.

    RULE 130 Section 22—Disqualification by reason of Marriage

    Ordoño v Daquigan
    RAPE

    FACTS: Avelino Ordoño was charged in the Municipal Court of La Union for raping his daughter Leonora.
    Leonora Ordoño signed the verified complaint and in support of the same, her mother Catalina, executed
    a sworn statement disclosing among others that Leonora apprised her of the crime but was not able to
    report to the police because of Avelino’s threat.

    Catalina further revealed that her husband also raped their other daughter Rosa Ordoño, for which he has
    been serving time in jail.

    The case was elevated to the CFI of La Union where the Fiscal presented Catalina as the second prosecution
    witness.

    The DEFENSE counsel objected to her competency, invoking the marital disqualification rule in Rule 130 of
    the Rules of Court:

    Sec. 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or relationship. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters in
    which they are interested, directly or indirectly, as herein enumerated:

    xxx xxx xxx

    (b) 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;

    xxx xxx xxx

    Counsel of Avelino claims that he did not give consent express or implied to his wife testifying against him.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Catalina may testify against her husband

    HELD: YES!!! Catalina may testify against her husband in the case at bar. The ruling that must be applied
    in the case is laid down in Cargill v State wherein the court said:

    The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the person is too narrow; and the
    rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the
    exception is too broad. The better rule is that, when an offense directly attack or directly and vitally
    impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a
    ALBIOLA, Maria Dariz G.

    witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against
    the other.

    Using the criterion thus judiciously enunciated in the Cargill case, it can be concluded that in the law of
    evidence the rape perpetrated by the father against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his
    wife (the victim's mother). *

    The rape of the daughter by the father, an undeniably abominable and revolting crime with incestuous
    implications, positively undermines the connubial relationship, is a proposition too obvious to require much
    elucidation.

    You might also like