People v. Ordoño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Avelino Ordoño was charged with raping his daughter, Leonora, on October 11, 1970. The victim's mother, Catalina Balanon Ordoño, executed a sworn statement detailing the incident and stating that her husband had threatened them if they reported the crime. Catalina also revealed that Avelino had previously raped their other daughter, Rosa, on March 25 and April 7, 1973, for which he was charged. Procedural History: During the preliminary investigation of the rape case involving Leonora, Catalina expressed no fear in denouncing Avelino, as he was already incarcerated for raping Rosa. The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of La Union. When Catalina was presented as a witness, the defense objected to her competency, invoking the marital disqualification rule. The trial court overruled the objection, and Avelino's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Avelino Ordoño filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, questioning the trial court's ruling on his wife's competency as a witness.
Issue(s)
Whether the rape committed by a husband against his daughter is considered a 'crime committed by one against the other' (the spouse) within the meaning of the exception to the marital disqualification rule under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed. The trial court did not err in holding that Catalina Ordoño could testify against her husband, Avelino Ordoño, in the case where he is being tried for having raped their daughter, Leonora.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the wife is a competent witness against her husband in cases of incestuous rape of their daughter. While Rule 130 generally prohibits a spouse from testifying against the other, the exception for crimes committed by one against the other applies here. The Court adopted the 'vital impairment' test, reasoning that the rule is intended to preserve marital harmony, but where the husband's acts have already destroyed that harmony, the reason for the rule ceases to exist. Applying the precedent in Cargill v. State, the Court held that an offense which directly attacks or vitally impairs the conjugal relation falls within the exception. The rape of a daughter by her father is an abominable crime that 'positively undermines the connubial relationship' and constitutes an outrage upon the mother's dearest interests. Filipino family traditions emphasize the close bond between mother and daughter, making the father's beastly act a direct injury to the wife's peace and domestic security. Therefore, the wife is not disqualified from testifying, as the crime is considered committed against her as much as it is against the child.
Main Doctrine
The rape committed by a husband against his daughter is considered a crime committed by him against his wife within the meaning of the exception to the marital disqualification rule, making the wife a competent witness against the husband in such a case.