Disqualification Priest-Penitent Flashcards
Give the rule.
A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him or her in his or her professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
What are the Requisites for this rule to apply?
- The communication, confession, or advice must have been made to the priest in his or her professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130, ROC, as amended); and
- Communications made must be confidential and must be penitential in character, e.g., under the seal of the confessional. (Regalado, 2008)
Q: For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her husband Walter because of the latter’s suspicion that she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house but Nenita survived as she fled in time, while her sister was caught inside when the house collapsed. As she was running away from the burning house, Nenita was surprised to see her husband also running away from the scene. Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned house and whom Walter medically consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the vicinity some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who regularly hears Walter’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also encountered him not too far away from the burned house. Walter was charged with arson and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the priest confessor, who all saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at about the time of the fire.
(2006, 2013 BAR)
a. May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the objection of Walter?
b. May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist, be allowed over Walter’s objection?
c. May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priest confessor, be allowed over Walter’s objection?
NO. Nenita may not be allowed to testify against Walter. Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, neither the husband nor the wife, during their marriage, 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 latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec. 23, Rule 130, ROC, as amended) The foregoing exceptions cannot apply since it only extends to a criminal case of one spouse against the other or the latter’s direct ascendants or descendants. Clearly, Nenita is not the offended party and her sister is not her direct ascendant or descendant for her to fall within the exception.
YES. The testimony of Walter’s psychiatrist may be allowed. The privileged communication contemplated under Sec. 24(c) Rule applies only in civil cases and not in a criminal case for arson. Besides, the subject of the testimony of Dr. Carlos was not in connection with the advice or treatment given by him to Walter, or any information he acquired in attending to Walter in a professional capacity. The testimony of Dr. Carlos is limited only to what he perceived at the vicinity of the fire and at about the time of the fire.
YES. The priest can testify over the objection of Walter. The disqualification requires that the same were made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination to which they belong and must be confidential and penitential in character, e.g., under the seal of confession. (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130, ROC, as amended) Here, the testimony of Fr. Platino was not previously subject of a confession of Walter or an advice given by him to Walter in his professional character. The testimony was merely limited to what Fr. Platino perceived “at the vicinity of the fire and at about the time of the fire.
