This is a murder case against Roberto Pasensoy for killing Hilario Inovero.
Roberto Pasensoy is the legal husband of Analie Pasensoy.
Analie has been in a live in relationship with a guy named Hilario Reyes y Inovero for 3 months before the incident happened.
Roberto Pasensoy has no knowledge of the affair and whereabouts of Analie and Hilario before the killing of the latter.
Roberto, a security guard, on his way home, was told by a certain Amadong Bisaya about seeing his wife with their youngest child and Tisoy (referring to HIlario) board a jeep going to Lumang bayan (where Analie and Hilario are renting a house together).
He then asked Bisaya to accompany him to the place. Roberto having with him his service gun, used the same in killing Hilario with a single shot on the head.
The prosecution offered Analie and the deceased neighbor as witnesses.
No objection was raised on Analie’s testimony.
Accused was judged guilty of the crime.
ISSUE: w/n it violates the marital disqualification rule?
NO. The testimony was admitted.
As the legitimate wife of appellant, Analies testimony would have been disregarded had appellant timely objected to her competency to testify under the marital disqualification rule.Under this rule, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, 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 latters direct descendants or ascendants. However, objections to the competency of a husband and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally. The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness. In this case, the incompetency was waived by appellants failure to make a timely objection to the admission of Analies testimony.
We note that Rogelio was presented to corroborate Analies testimony, but he gave a rather confusing account of what he allegedly saw or heard on the night of the shooting. During his direct examination, he claimed that he heard a gunshot, but on cross-examination he claimed that he opened the door of his house and actually saw appellant shoot Hilario. In any event, it is well-settled that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict an accused.