G.R. No. L-8371 - JUNE 1955 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-8371June 30, 1955 Nicanor P. Nicolas vs. Juan P. Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-8351June 30, 1955 Rogaciano Millarez vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. G.R. No. L-8364June 30, 1955 Rogaciano Millarez vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. G.R. No. L-8365June 30, 1955 Rogaciano Millarez vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. G.R. No. L-7750June 30, 1955 Democrito M. Castro vs. Manuel Solidum G.R. No. L-7710June 30, 1955 Natividad Escarrilla vs. Roman Ibañez, et al. G.R. No. L-7546June 30, 1955 Intestate Estate of Francisco T. Ramos. Cecilia Ramos Silos, et al. vs. Maria Luisa Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-7179June 30, 1955 Testate Estate of Apolinario Ledesma.Felicidad Javellana vs. Matea Ledesma G.R. No. L-6156June 30, 1955 Primo Olivares vs. Macario Leola, et al. G.R. No. L-7382June 29, 1955 SouthWestern Sugar and Molasses Co. vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. G.R. No. L-6799June 29, 1955 Cristitu Bautista, et al. vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-7401June 1955, 1955 Arsenio Escudero, et al. vs. Gertrudo Flores, et al. G.R. No. L-5541June 25, 1955 Teofila de Guinoo, etc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-7899June 23, 1955 Alfredo Montelibano, et al. vs. Felix S. Ferrer, et al. G.R. No. L-7459June 23, 1955 Pacifico M. Juanico, et al. vs. American Land Commercial Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-7123June 17, 1955 Leandro Espejo vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-6961June 17, 1955 Felix Calalang vs. Pablo Lorenzo, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Nicanor P. Nicolas vs. Juan P. Enriquez, et al. Rogaciano Millarez vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. Rogaciano Millarez vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. Rogaciano Millarez vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. Democrito M. Castro vs. Manuel Solidum Natividad Escarrilla vs. Roman Ibañez, et al. Intestate Estate of Francisco T. Ramos. Cecilia Ramos Silos, et al. vs. Maria Luisa Ramos, et al. Testate Estate of Apolinario Ledesma.Felicidad Javellana vs. Matea Ledesma Primo Olivares vs. Macario Leola, et al. SouthWestern Sugar and Molasses Co. vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. Cristitu Bautista, et al. vs. Auditor General Arsenio Escudero, et al. vs. Gertrudo Flores, et al. Teofila de Guinoo, etc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Alfredo Montelibano, et al. vs. Felix S. Ferrer, et al. Pacifico M. Juanico, et al. vs. American Land Commercial Co., Inc., et al. Leandro Espejo vs. Auditor General, et al. Felix Calalang vs. Pablo Lorenzo, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

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.

Provincial Fiscal Nicanor P. Nicolas in his own behalf.
Ricardo Conjares and Julain T. Ocampo for respondents.

REYES, A.,J.:

At the trial of a criminal case for concubinage filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by Corazon Vizcarra against the defendant Jimmy William Nelson and his co-defendant Priscilla Fontanosa, the court ruled out testimony of three prosecution witnesses tending to show that a boy named Paul William Nelson, born in Cavite on September 17, 1949, was the son of both defendants. The said testimony was objected to as immaterial, but the objection was sustained on the ground that inquiry into the paternity of a natural child is forbidden except in actions for forcible acknowledgment.

Contending that prior sexual relations between the defendants were admissible to show "propensity" to commit the offense charged or disposition to maintain such relations even after the marriage of one of the defendants to the complaint, the prosecution brought the present action formandamusto compel the trial court to admit the preferred evidence.

It is a rule of evidence that what one did at one time is no proof of his having done the same or a similar thing at another time. But the rule is not absolute, for it is subject to the exceptions enumerated in section 17 of Rule 123, Rules of Court, which reads —

We are not persuaded that the preferred evidence, when viewed in the light of facts brought out in the present case, would come under any of the exceptions named. It appears from the order containing the questioned ruling that the boy Paul was born five years before complainant's marriage to one of the defendants. This means that the previous sexual relations sought to be proved were far removed in point of time from the illicit act now complained of, and having, moreover, taken place when there was as yet no legal impediment to the same, they furnish no rational basis for the inference that they would be continued after complainant's marriage to one of the defendants had created such impediment and made continuance of sexual relations between the defendants a crime.

The evidence objected to being immaterial and irrelevant, the trial court cannot be compelled to admit it regardless of whether or not the New Civil Code permits investigation or inquiry into the paternity of a natural child except in actions for forcible acknowledgement.

The writ prayed for is, therefore, denied, but without special pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ.,concur.