The Market Monitor Minding the Nation's Business
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication[s]. – The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
a. The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
Husband and Wife.
1. Marital disqualification rule is that the husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
2. On grounds of public policy the wife cannot testify against her husband as to what came to her from him confidentially or by reason of the marriage relation, but this rule does not apply to a dying communication made by the husband to the wife on the trial of the one who killed him. The declaration of the deceased made in extremes in such cases is a thing to be proven, and this proof may be made by any competent witness who heard the statement. (The United States vs. Dalmaceo Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109, March 6, 1918, En Banc).
3. Applying the foregoing criterion in said case of Ordoño v. Daquigan, this Court held that the rape committed by the husband of the witness-wife against their daughter was a crime committed by the husband against his wife. Although the victim of the crime committed by the accused in that case was not his wife but their daughter, this Court, nevertheless, applied the exception for the reason that said criminal act “positively undermine(d) the connubial relationship.” (Cited in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Mariano C. Castañeda, Jr. G.R. No. L-46306. February 27, 1979).
4. Inevitably, the spouses (husband or wife) during their marriage and cohabitation can acquire information from each other. To illustrate:
The husband told his wife that their ‘kumpadre’ has another beautiful and young woman. This information received by the wife during their marriage cannot be revealed before the court or put into a notarized affidavit if the husband does not give his consent for the wife to reveal that. The obvious reason for the rule is privilege communication, and another reason is to encourage communication between spouses since communication is one of the proven tools to a long and lasting marital relationships. .
5. The common-law spouses, common-law marriage which is prevalently known as the live-in relationship cannot invoke this marital disqualification or the privilege communication. The rule is clear, it says: The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence.
6. Although, Article 147 of the Family code recognizes the live-in relationship, the said Article however is concentrating only on their property rights, which are their wages and salaries. The wordings of Article 147 are:
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a) (Family Code).
7. On grounds of public policy the wife cannot testify against her husband as to what came to her from him confidentially or by reason of the marriage relation, but this rule does not apply to a dying communication made by the husband to the wife on the trial of the one who killed him. The declaration of the deceased made in extremes in such cases is a thing to be proven, and this proof may be made by any competent witness who heard the statement. The wife may testify for the state in cases of this character as to any other fact known to her. It can not be contended that the dying declaration testified to by the witness was a confidential communication made to her; on the contrary, it was evidently made in the furtherance of justice for the express purpose that it should be testified to in the prosecution of the defendant. (The United States v. Dalmaceo Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109, March 6, 1918, En banc).