ETRIII
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW Lecture Series
Lecture
Outline No. 4
CONTINUATION ON
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
By: Atty. Eduardo T.
Reyes, III
(Prepared for Law 3-A,
Univ. of San Agustin
Law School,
SY 2016-2017)
A. Continuation on
Disqualification of Witnesses
A.1.
Physician-Patient Privilege(Sec. 24, Rule 130)
X x x
( c ) A person
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment
given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such
patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable
him to act in that capacity, which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
x x x
-
“This
privilege, embodied in Sec. 24 ( c ) of Rule 130, applies to a civil case, whether the patient is a
party or not. The phraseology of the rule implies that the privilege cannot be
claimed in a criminal case presumably because the interest of the public in
criminal prosecution should be deemed more important than the secrecy of the
communication.”[1]
-
“In
criminal cases, the privilege does not apply for the maintenance of public
order and the life and liberty of the citizens are deemed more important than
the purpose for which the privilege was created. ‘The statutory privilege was
not conferred to shield a person charged with the murder of another’ and it
certainly was not intended to be used as a weapon against one charged with
crime.”[2]
-
“The person
against whom the privilege is claimed is a person duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery, or obstetrics.
-
“Communication made to dentists,
pharmacists, or nurses. – The persons against whim the privilege may be
claimed are those duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
The privilege cannot be extended by construction to persons employing other
curative processes not coming within the ordinary meaning of the term ‘practice
of medicine’, surgery or obstetrics. Accordingly, communications made by a
patient to dentists, pharmacists and nurses who are not acting as agents
of physicians, surgeons or obstetricians, are not privileged”[3].
The information which cannot be disclosed
refers to:
a)
Any advice
given to the client;
b)
Any treatment
given to the client;
c)
Any
information acquired in attending such patient provided that the advice,
treatment or information was made or acquired in a professional capacity and
was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and
d)
The
information sought to be disclosed would tend to blacken the reputation of the
patient ( Sec. 24[c] Ru;e 130, Rules of Court). The word “reputation” is
used instead of the previous word, “character”.
A.2. Attorney-Client
Privilege(Sec. 24, Rule 130)
X x x
( c ) An attorney
cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment, nor can can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
capacity”.
“Requisites for the rule. – The
following requisites must be present in order that the privilege may be
claimed: (a) there must be a relation of attorney and client; (b) there must be
communication by the client to the attorney; and ( c ) such communication has
been made in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment.
It
is not essential to create the privilege that any proceedings , criminal or
civil, should be pending or even in contemplation.
NOT
COVERED IS DISCLOSURE OF FUTURE OR CONTINUING CRIME-While a person accused of
crime may claim a privilege for any information communicated by him to his
attorney after the date of the crime, communications to an attorney by a client
who contemplates the future commission of a crime, and advice given by
the attorney as to how the client may escape the consequences of a future
infraction of the criminal laws, are not privileged,
The
rule is that the prostitution of the
honorable relation of attorney and
client will not be permitted under the guise of privilege, and every
communication made to an attorney by a client for a criminal purpose is a conspiracy
or attempt at a conspiracy which is not only lawful to divulge, but which
the attorney under certain circumstances may be bound to disclose at once in
the interest of justice.[4]”
A.3. Priest/
minister-Penitent Privilege(Sec. 24, Rule 130)
X x x
( d ) A minister or
priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be
examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his
professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to
which the priest or minister or priest belongs; x x x
-
“Not every
communication made to a minister or priest is privileged. The communication
must be made pursuant to confessions of sins. (Wigmore on Evidence,
&848). As clearly provided in the rule, the advice given as a result of the
confession must be made in the minister’s “professional character” (Sec. 24[d],
Rule 130, Rules 130, Rules of Court), or in his “spiritual” capacity.
Accordingly, where the penitent discussed business arrangements with the
priest, the privilege does not apply (U.S. v. Gordon, 493 F. Supp. 822 [7th
Cir. 1987])”[5].
-
“Communications
made not in the course of religious discipline but in contemplation of a
crime, are not privileged.
A.4. Public
Officer(Sec. 24, Rule 130)
X x x
( e ) A public
officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that
the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.”
-“Reason
for the rule.- It is the duty of every citizen to communicate to his government
any information which he has of the commission of an offense against its law;
and a court of justice will not compel or allow such information to be
disclosed, either by the subordinate officer to whom it is given, by the
informer himself, or by any other person without the permission of the
government, the evidence being excluded not for the protection of the
witness or of the party in the particular case, but upon general grounds of
public policy, because of the confidential nature of such communications”.[6]
-Concept
of EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE; PRESIDENTIAL
COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE
In “Chavez
v. PCGG (299 SCRA 744) ruled that
there is a privilege against the disclosure on certain matters involving state
secrets regarding the following:
(a)
Military;
(b)
diplomatic; and
(
c ) other national security matters.
“Again
in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority (384
SCRA 152), it was similarly held that secrets involving military, diplomatic,
and national security matters, and information on investigations of crimes by
law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused were exempted
from the right to information. The right to information does not also extend to
presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door
cabinet meetings.[7]”
-The
invocation involves a delicate “balancing-act” with the Constitutional right of
the “people
to information on matters of public concern and guarantees access to official
records, documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law[8]”.
“Chavez
v. PCGG (299 SCRA 744) , the
Constitutional right to information includes official information on ongoing
negotiations before a final contract, such information does not cover
recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic
secrets and similar matters affecting national interest. The matters falling
under these exceptions, according to the Court, cannot be disclosed even if
they constitute definite propositions. Since diplomatic negotiations enjoy a
presumptive privilege against disclosure, petitioners need to sufficiently show
the existence of a public interest sufficient to overcome the privilege. The
court concluded with a finding that the petitioners have failed to present a
“sufficient showing of need” in their
arguments”[9].
A.5. Parental and
Filial Privilege(Sec. 25, Rule 130)- No person may be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants”.
-Article 215 Family
Code. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against
his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a
crime, against the descendant or by one parent against the other.
-Reason for the Rule-
The reason of the
rule is to preserve “family cohesion”, deploring the lack of this provision
under the former laws as doing violence to the most sacred sentiments between
members of the same family.
-Privilege may be invoked- in both CIVIL
and CRIMINAL cases.”[10]
No comments:
Post a Comment