CRIMPRO Jurisdiction

Title 253 SCRA 699 GR. No. 107383

Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals Date: February 20, 1996
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Cecilia Zulueta Petitioner ALFREDO MARTIN Respondent
Nature of the case: Spousal or Privacy of Communications
FACTS
Case timeline for better appreciation:
1. Petitioner, Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner
entered the clinic of her husband, doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, driver and private
respondents secretary, FORCIBLY OPENED THE DRAWERS AND CABINET IN HER HUSBAND'S CLINIC CONSISTING
OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS CORRESPONDENCE AND HIS ALLEGED PARAMOURS. The documents and papers
were seized and use in evidence in a case of legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of
medicine which were filed by the petitioner.
RTC- ruled in favor of the private respondents, ordering the petitioner to return the properties and pay damages.
CA- affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE/S
W/N THE DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS IN QUESTION WERE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE --YES
RATIO
The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence (to be) inviolable" is no less
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is a party against
whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced.
The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT OR WHEN
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES OTHERWISE, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence
obtained inadmissible "for any purpose of the proceeding".
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the
other and in ransacking the for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. THE LAW INSURES ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE SPOUSES BY MAKING IT PRIVILEGED. NEITHER A HUSBAND NOR WIFE MAY TESTIFY
FOR OR AGAINST THE OTHER WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE AFFECTED SPOUSE WHILE MARRIAGE SUBSISTS.
NEITHER MAY BE EXAMINED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER AS TO ANY COMMUNICATION RECEIVED IN
CONFIDENCE BY ONE FROM THE OTHER DURING MARRIAGE, SAVE FOR SPECIFIED EXCEPTION.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of Merit. SO ORDERED.
2S 2017-18 (SAPLAGIO)