People v.

Carlos
March 17, 1925 | Ostrand, J. | Appeal | Privileged Communications Marital Communications

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines

DEFENDANT-APPELANT: Fausto v. Carlos
SUMMARY: Dr. Sityar performed a surgical operation on the wife of Carlos because the latter was suffering from appendicitis.
The former demanded payment to Carlos but the latter protested such payment. Dr. Sityar was stabbed by Carlos after an argument
between the two. Carlos claimed self-defense. CFI ruled out self-defense and found that Carlos is guilty of murder. This is based on
a finding of evident premeditation when the court admitted in evidence a letter written by the wife of Carlos addressed to him two
days after the death of Dr. Sityar stating that Carlos might have resorted to physical violence. SC found that Carlos is guilty only of
simple homicide. The letter is inadmissible because the defense was not given the opportunity to assent to its contents during trial.
DOCTRINE: Where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the hands of a third party, whether legally
or not, without collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either spouses, the privilege is thereby extinguished and the
communication, if competent, becomes admissible. The illegality of the search and seizure must be directly litigated and established
by a motion made before trial for the return of the things seized in order that the communication be excluded in evidence. However,
in case of letters, the spouses must be given opportunity in the witness stand to assent to its contents.

FACTS: ISSUE/S:
1. Dr. Pablo Sityar performed a surgical operation for 1. WON the letter is admissible in evidence NO
appendicitis and other ailments on Fausto Carloss wife. After
the operation, Carlos and his wife visited Dr. Sityar several RULING: CFI decision is MODIFIED. Carlos is guilty of
times for the purpose of dressing the wounds. simple homicide.

2. During one of the visits to Dr. Sityar, the latter asked Carlos
to buy some medicine. Carlos states that during his absence,
Doctor Sityar outraged the wife.
3. Carlos, while confined in PGH due to a stomach trouble,
received a letter from Dr. Sityar asking the former to settle
their account for services rendered to the wife.
4. May 26, 1924: Carlos went to the clinic of Dr. Sityar and
found the latter alone. Without any quarrel, Carlos attacked
Dr. Sityar with a fan-knife and stabbed him twice. Dr. Sityar
made an effort to escape but Carlos pursued him and inflicted
another wound upon him. He died within a few minutes.
Carlos escaped but surrendered himself to the Constabulary at
Malolos, Bulacan, in the evening of the following day.
5. Carlos admits that he killed Dr. Sityar but maintains that he
did so in self-defense. (CFI ruled out self-defense for being
contrary to the evidence of the prosecution)
6. The CFI found Carlos guilty of murder due to presence of
evident premeditation. This was sustained by taking into
consideration a letter written to Carlos by his wife and seized
by the police in searching his effects on the day of his arrest.
The letter shows that the wife feared that Carlos contemplated
resorting to physical violence in dealing with the deceased.
7. The defense argues that the letter was a privileged
communication and therefore not admissible in evidence.
Also, the letter was obtained through a search for which no
warrant appears to have been issued. The defense argues that
documents obtained by illegal searches are not admissible in
evidence in a criminal case.
RATIO:
1. SEE DOCTRINE.
2. The letter must be excluded. The letter was written by the
wife and if she had testified at the trial the letter might have
been admissible to impeach her testimony, but she was not put
on the witness-stand. The letter was therefore not offered for
the purpose. Also, if the defendant had indicated his assent to
the statements contained in the letter it might also have been
admissible, but such is not the case. The fact that he had the
letter in his possession is no indication of acquiescence or
assent on his part. The letter is therefore nothing but pure
hearsay and its admission in evidence violates the
constitutional right of the defendant in a criminal case to be
confronted with the witnesses for the prosecution and have the
opportunity to cross-examine them. In this respect there can be
no difference between an ordinary communication and one
originally privileged.
3. The question is radically different from that of the
admissibility of testimony of a third party as to a conversation
between a husband and wife overheard by the witness.
Testimony of that character is admissible on the ground that it
relates to a conversation in which both spouses took part and
on the further ground that where the defendant has the
opportunity to answer a statement made to him by his spouse
and fails to do so, his silence implies assent. That cannot apply
where the statement is contained in an unanswered letter.
4.With the letter excluded in evidence, there is no sufficient
evidence that the crime was premeditated.