ARROYO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 96602, 19 November 1991
FACTS:
A criminal complaint for adultery was filed by Dr. Neri (husband) against Ruby (wife) and Arroyo (petitioner). After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioner and the wife, based, among others on the wife's admission to her husband that she sex with petitioner Arroyo. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The wife later filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial contending that a pardon had been extended by her husband. The husband filed a manifestation praying for the dismissal of the case as he had "tacitly consented" to his wife's infidelity.
ISSUES/RULINGS:
1. Whether the admission of adulterous conduct by the wife to her husband without the presence of her counsel is admissible in evidence.
YES. The husband's testimony relating to the admission of adulterous conduct made by the wife to her husband is admissible in evidence. The husband was neither a peace officer nor an investigating officer conducting a custodial investigation. Neither was said testimony rendered inadmissible by the constitutional provision on the right to remain silent and the right to counsel of a "person under investigation for the commission of an offense."
The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confession or admissions from respondent-accused.
2. Whether the husband is a competent witness against his wife
Yes. The husband is not precluded under the Rules of Court from testifying against his wife in criminal cases for a crime committed by one against the other (Section 22, Rule 129, Revised Rules of Court). In short, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in admitting Dr. Neri's testimony as he was a competent witness.
G.R. No. 96602, 19 November 1991
FACTS:
A criminal complaint for adultery was filed by Dr. Neri (husband) against Ruby (wife) and Arroyo (petitioner). After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioner and the wife, based, among others on the wife's admission to her husband that she sex with petitioner Arroyo. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The wife later filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial contending that a pardon had been extended by her husband. The husband filed a manifestation praying for the dismissal of the case as he had "tacitly consented" to his wife's infidelity.
ISSUES/RULINGS:
1. Whether the admission of adulterous conduct by the wife to her husband without the presence of her counsel is admissible in evidence.
YES. The husband's testimony relating to the admission of adulterous conduct made by the wife to her husband is admissible in evidence. The husband was neither a peace officer nor an investigating officer conducting a custodial investigation. Neither was said testimony rendered inadmissible by the constitutional provision on the right to remain silent and the right to counsel of a "person under investigation for the commission of an offense."
The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confession or admissions from respondent-accused.
2. Whether the husband is a competent witness against his wife
Yes. The husband is not precluded under the Rules of Court from testifying against his wife in criminal cases for a crime committed by one against the other (Section 22, Rule 129, Revised Rules of Court). In short, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in admitting Dr. Neri's testimony as he was a competent witness.
No comments:
Post a Comment