People v. Carlos(Short title) 1.

Counsel for the defendant argues vigorously that the letter was a privileged
47 PHIL 626 | March 27, 1925 communication and therefore not admissible in evidence. The numerical
Plaintiff-Appellants: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES weight of authority is, however, to the effect that where a privileged
Defendant-Appellee: FAUSTO V. CARLOS communication from one spouse to another comes into the hands of a third
party, whether legally or not, without collusion and voluntary disclosure on
DOCTRINE the part of either of the spouses, the privilege is thereby extinguished and
the communication, if otherwise competent, becomes admissible. This is the
Where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into view of the SC
the hands of a third party, whether legally or not, without collusion and 2. The letter Exhibit must, however, be excluded for reasons not discussed in
voluntary disclosure on the part of either of the spouses, the privilege is the briefs. The letter was written by the wife of the defendant and if she had
testified at the trial the letter might have been admissible to impeach her
thereby extinguished and the communication, if otherwise competent,
testimony, but she was not put on the witness-stand and the letter was
becomes admissible.
therefore not offered for that purpose.
3. If the defendant either by answer or otherwise had indicated his assent to
FACT
the statements contained in the letter it might also have been admissible, but
1. The victim of the alleged murder, Dr. Pablo G. Sityar, in Mary Chiles
such is not the case here; the fact that he had the letter in his possession is
Hospital, performed a surgical operation upon the defendant Carlos’s wife for
no indication of acquiescence or assent on his part.
appendicitis and certain other ailments.
4. The letter is therefore nothing but pure hearsay and its admission in
2. Carlos admits that he killed the Sityar but maintains that he did so in
evidence violates the constitutional right of the defendant in a criminal case
selfdefense. He explains that he went to Doctor Sityar's office to protest
to be confronted with the witnesses for the prosecution and have the
against the amount of the fee charged by the doctor and, in any event, to ask
opportunity to cross-examine them. In this respect there can be no difference
for an extension of the time of payment.
between an ordinary communication and one originally privileged.
3. He claims that the Doctor insulted him on his inability to pay and told him to
5. The question is radically different from that of the admissibility of testimony
tell his wife to talk to him instead. He claims that this was said in such a
of a third party as to a conversation between a husband and wife overheard
contemptuous manner that he was greatly incensed to the extent that it
by the witness. Testimony of that character is admissible on the ground that
made Carlos grab a knife from the doctor’s table
it relates to a conversation in which both spouses took part and on the
4. Sityar, making use of his knowledge of fencing, succeeded in taking the knife
further ground that where the defendant has the opportunity to answer a
away from the deceased and blinded by fury stabbed him first in the right
statement made to him by his spouse and fails to do so, his silence implies
side of the breast and then in the epigastric region, and fearing that the
assent. That cannot apply where the statement is contained in an
deceased might secure some other weapon or receive assistance from the
unanswered letter. The Defendant is Guilty of Simple Homicide.
people in the adjoining room, he again stabbed him, this time in the back.
5. It was found that the killing was premeditated, but such can only be proven
DISPOSITION
by a letter made by the wife to Carlos. Respondents claim that such letter
For the reasons stated we find the defendant guilty of simple homicide, without
cannot be used as evidence as it is privileged communication between
aggravating or extenuating circumstances.
husband and wife
The sentence appealed from is therefore modified by reducing the penalty to fourteen
years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding
ISSUE/S
accessory penalties and with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
1. Whether or not the letter was a privileged communication and therefore not
admissible in evidence?

RULING & RATIO

- IT is not admissible

Page 1 of 1