United States vs Concepcion 31 Phil 182. No. 10396. July 29, 1915

Doctrine:

Witness competency; husband and wife

Declaration made in another case

Facts:

                The defendant, Teresa Concepcion, was charged with a violation of the Opium Law. The complaint alleged that she had in her possession and under her control a quantity of opium. She was arrested, arraigned, pleaded not guilty, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of P300 and costs.

                It appears from the evidence that the house of Felix RIcablanca, husband of the defendant, was searched for opium. During the search Felix told the defendant to take from the bed a can alleged to contain opium, and throw it away. She went to the bed, found the can, and at that moment was discovered by the policeman. She denied prior knowledge of the existence of the can. This fact was supported by the declaration of her husband. The policemen, at that moment, evidently believed that the opium belonged to the husband, Felix Ricablanca, for the reason that they arrested him and took him to the pueblo, and later filed a complaint against him for a violation of the Opium Law .He was later brought to trial and was acquitted.

No complaint was presented against the present defendant until after a period of more than ten months had elapsed. The policemen who were present at the time the opium was found certainly knew no more about the facts at the time the complaint was presented against the present defendant than they did on the night when the opium was found and when they arrested her husband.

Issue:

                Whether or not the testimony of the husband is admissible against the defendant.

Ruling:

                No.

                It will be noted that said action prohibits a husband from giving testimony against his wife without her consent, except in a civil action between husband and wife, and in a criminal action when the crime was committed by one against the other. The present is not a civil action between husband and wife; neither it is a criminal action where the crime was committed by one against the other. It would seem to clear, therefore, that the testimony of the husband is not admissible if the wife objected. The testimony of the husband should not have been admitted.

There still another objection to the admissibility of the testimony of the husband. His testimony was not given in the present case. It was a copy of his declaration given in another case, in which he was the defendant and in which he was charged with the illegal possession of the opium in question. It will be remembered that at the time the opium was found in the house of the defendant, the husband of the present defendant was arrested; that later a complaint was presented against him. During the trial he testified in his own behalf. It was the testimony given in that case which was presented as proof in the present case. He was not called as a witness. His testimony is not only not admissible under the provisions above quoted of section 383, but it is not admissible under the Philippine Bill, which provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf."