GR L 8371; (June, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8371 June 30, 1955
NICANOR P. NICOLAS as Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, petitioner, vs. HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, as Presiding Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, JIMMY WILLIAM NELSON and PRESCILLA FONTANOSA, respondents.
FACTS
During the trial of a criminal case for concubinage filed by Corazon Vizcarra against Jimmy William Nelson and Priscilla Fontanosa, the trial court excluded the testimony of three prosecution witnesses. This testimony aimed to prove that a boy named Paul William Nelson, born on September 17, 1949, was the son of both defendants. The defense objected to this testimony as immaterial, and the court sustained the objection, ruling that inquiry into the paternity of a natural child is forbidden except in actions for forcible acknowledgment. The prosecution, contending that evidence of prior sexual relations between the defendants was admissible to show a “propensity” or disposition to commit the offense charged, filed this petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to admit the excluded evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony regarding the paternity of the child Paul William Nelson as evidence of prior sexual relations between the defendants, which the prosecution argued was admissible to show propensity or disposition to commit concubinage.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. It held that the excluded evidence was immaterial and irrelevant. The Court cited the rule of evidence under Section 17, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, which states that evidence of a similar act at one time is not admissible to prove the same act at another time, except to prove specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage. The Court found that the proffered evidence did not fall under any of these exceptions. It noted from the trial court’s order that the child was born five years before the complainant’s marriage to one of the defendants. Therefore, the prior sexual relations sought to be proved were too remote in time from the alleged illicit act constituting concubinage and occurred when there was no legal impediment. These prior relations provided no rational basis to infer they would continue after the marriage created a legal impediment and made such relations a crime. Consequently, the trial court could not be compelled to admit the immaterial and irrelevant evidence.