G.R. No. L-1709; June 8, 1948
ASCENCION ICUTANIM, petitioner, vs. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, Judge of First Instance of Capiz, and DEMETRIO VINSON, Provincial Fiscal, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Ascencion Icutanim, is charged with parricide for killing his young child. During the trial, the prosecution called his wife (the mother of the deceased child) to testify against him. The petitioner objected, invoking the marital disqualification rule. The trial court overruled the objection, citing Section 26(d) of Rule 123 (now Rule 130, Section 22 of the Rules of Court), which allows a spouse to testify in criminal proceedings for a crime committed against the testifying spouse. The court held the rule did not apply because the crime was committed against the wife.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in allowing the wife to testify against her husband, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that a writ of certiorari is only proper when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Even assuming the trial court’s ruling was erroneous, the proper remedy to correct such an error is an appeal after a final judgment, not certiorari. Allowing certiorari for interim trial errors would unduly burden the Supreme Court and circumvent the appellate process. The petition was denied, with costs against the petitioner.

AI Generated by Armztrong.