MIDTERM REVIEW Flashcards
TOPIC 9
Waldo and Tintin were married on 14 February 2010. After two months, Tintin told Waldo in confidence that the 10-year old Diana whom Tintin claimed to be her niece was actually her daughter by a certain Reno, a married man. In 2015, Tintin obtained a decree of nullity of marriage against Waldo. After finality of the decision, Diana filed a criminal complaint for rape against Waldo, where Tintin was called as prosecution witness.
Here, marital disqualification rule does not apply since the marriage between Waldo and Tintin was already dissolved. And even if not dissolved, it also does not apply it being a crime committed by Waldo against Tintin’s direct descendant.
Tintin filed a criminal action for bigamy against Waldo, who contracted second marriage with Hannah during the existence of the marriage between Waldo and Tintin. During the trial, Tintin called Hannah as prosecution witness.
can Hannah invoke marital disqualification?
Here, Hannah may testify it being an exception, because the crime of bigamy is committed against both wives. Besides, since the marriage between Waldo and Hannah is void for being bigamous, marital disqualification rule does not apply as the rule presupposes a valid marriage.
Rafael was previously convicted of perjury and estafa. Years later, Victor was charged with falsification of a public document, specifically forging a will to inherit property from a deceased relative.
The prosecution sought to call Rafael as a witness, arguing that Rafael had overheard Victor boasting about the forgery and had seen Victor draft the fake will. The defense objected, arguing that Rafael was disqualified as a witness under Rule 119 because of his prior conviction.
can Rafael validly testify
Rafael CAN testify in the criminal case because Rule 119, Section 17 only prohibits convicts of crimes involving moral turpitude from being discharged as a state witness, not from testifying in general. Since he was never a co-accused, there was no issue of discharge—he is just a prosecution witness.
Tintin confessed to Waldo that the child that Tintin claims to be her niece is actually her child by Reno who is a married man, and in a legal separation case that Sandra filed against Reno, Reno objected to the testimony of Waldo
is the objection proper?
Disqualification of Witness > By reason of privilege communication > Holder of Privilege > H&W
No, Reno cannot object to the testimony of Waldo because R is NOT the spouse of witness Waldo
Waldo and Reno are brothers. Their father Rando hired Atty. Abogado to draft his Will. Rando died. Waldo wants to show that their father Rando intended to bequeath Lot B to Waldo.
Can Atty testify that Rando intended Lot B to Waldo as shown in the Will?
Yes
Here, Atty. Abogado can testify that Rando intended to devise Lot B to Waldo as shown by the Will
Disqualification by reason of PC > lawyer & client > Instances where this privilege does not apply > EXCEPTIONS > (2) Claimants through the same deceased client;
Where the client accuses the lawyer of demanding exorbitant fees,
Can the lawyer disclose relevant communication to show that the case is complicated and difficult justifying higher fees.
Yes
Disqualification by reason of PC > lawyer & client > Instances where this privilege does not apply > EXCEPTIONS > Breach of duty by lawyer or client
Carlos, a businessman, consulted Atty. Rico regarding his company’s tax issues. During their meeting, Carlos disclosed that he had already underreported his company’s income for the past three years and was worried about a possible audit. Atty. Rico advised Carlos on the penalties for tax evasion and possible legal defenses.
A month later, Carlos returned to Atty. Rico and asked, “If I continue underreporting my income, how can I structure my records so that auditors won’t detect it?” Atty. Rico, suspecting illegal intent, refused to answer.
Later, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) launched an investigation, and Atty. Rico was subpoenaed to testify about Carlos’ statements during their consultations. Carlos invoked the lawyer-client privilege and argued that all their discussions were confidential legal advice.
Question:
Can Carlos validly invoke lawyer-client privilege to prevent Atty. Rico from testifying?
No, Carlos cannot invoke the lawyer-client privilege because his second consultation was about continuing a crime in the future. Under the crime-fraud exception, communications seeking advice to commit a future crime are not protected
A lawyer was an attesting witness to a Will. In a probate case, may the lawyer testify regarding circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will to show that the testator was of sound and disposing mind?
yes
Disqualification by reason of PC > lawyer & client > Instances where this privilege does not apply > EXCEPTIONS > (4) Document attested by the lawyer
Waldo and Reno engaged the services of their lawyer friend Rando to assist them during the negotiation and drafting of a Deed of Sale over Waldo’s condominium unit bought by Reno.
A dispute arose between Waldo and Reno as to who between them should shoulder the payment for capital gains tax and other incidental fees.
May Waldo present Rando as witness to testify that the agreement was for Reno to shoulder all these fees and expenses?
Yes
The “joint clients” rule applies even if one client secretly informs the common lawyer, because the common lawyer owes duty to inform the other clients.
Disqualification by reason of PC > lawyer & client > Instances where this privilege does not apply > EXCEPTIONS > Joint Clients
During annulment proceedings, Mark testified that his wife, Julia, suffered from a severe mental disorder based on a psychological evaluation report signed by Dr. Santos, a psychiatrist. Mark never attended Julia’s sessions but obtained a copy of the report through their family doctor. On the witness stand, Mark detailed the psychiatrist’s findings, claiming Julia was unfit for marriage.
Julia’s counsel objected, invoking the physician-patient privilege, arguing that the testimony and document were inadmissible since they contained confidential medical information.
As judge, rule on the objection.
Disqualification of Witness > By Reason of Privileged Communication > Physician/Psychotherapist & Patient
Where the person against whom the privilege is claimed is the patient’s husband who testifies on a document executed by medical practitioners, his testimony does not have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report. Plainly, this does not fall within the prohibition. (Ma. Paz Krohn vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108854, 14 June 1994)
Dan, a politician under investigation for corruption, confided in Pastor Levi, a well-respected spiritual advisor in the community. Over coffee at a private chapel room, Dan spoke about his guilt over “mishandling” public funds and sought moral guidance on whether to confess to the authorities.
During trial, the prosecution subpoenaed Pastor Levi, arguing that Dan’s admission was not a formal confession but merely casual advice-seeking. The defense objected, invoking the priest-penitent privilege.
The prosecution countered, asserting that:
The conversation was not part of any religious discipline, and
Pastor Levi was not a sacramental priest but a non-denominational spiritual counselor.
As judge, rule on the objection.
Disqualification by Reason of PC > Priest & Penitent PC
The priest-penitent privilege communication rule now includes non-penitential communication made to a spiritual advisor. The recent amendment now employs the phraseology “communication or confession” and “penitent or affected person
Thus, even though Pastor Levi is not a Catholic priest and Dan’s statement was not made in a formal confessional, it still falls under the privilege because it was a confidential spiritual communication made to a trusted advisor in their professional role.
The President of the Republic of Lavencia is facing allegations of corruption. The Special Prosecutor, investigating the case, subpoenas official recordings of a closed-door meeting where the alleged bribery took place. The President refuses, invoking executive privilege, arguing that all internal discussions must remain confidential to protect the integrity of the executive branch.
However, the prosecutor seek the discussion directly relevant to the bribery case. The trial court, balancing the interests, orders the release of the recordings.
The President’s legal team challenges the ruling, insisting that the principle of separation of powers shields executive communications from disclosure.
Decide
Disqualification by Reason of PC > Public Interest Privilege (Confidential communication involving public officers)
If the documents contain military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, then privilege may apply however in this case, what is sought are matters relating to the bribery incident
A Supreme Court law clerk was subpoenaed to testify before a congressional inquiry regarding an alleged bribery attempt on one of the Justices. The clerk personally witnessed a businessman entering the Justice’s chambers and later overheard a conversation where the Justice mentioned being offered a substantial sum in exchange for ruling favorably in a high-profile case.
The Justice invokes deliberative process privilege, arguing that any testimony about discussions within chambers is protected as part of the Court’s internal deliberations.
The Senate committee insists that the clerk’s testimony is external to the adjudicatory function of the Court and concerns potential corruption, which is a matter of public interest.
Question:
Should the clerk be compelled to testify? Explain
Disqualification by reason of PC > Official Secrets >Deliberate Process Privilege/Judicial Privilege
Yes, the law clerk should be compelled to testify.
The deliberative process privilege protects only advisory opinions, recommendations, and internal deliberations that are part of a court’s decision-making process. However, in this case, the testimony sought does not concern judicial reasoning or case deliberation but rather a potential bribery attempt—a matter of corruption and misconduct, which is external to the Court’s adjudicatory function.
The privilege does not shield illegal acts or ethical breaches. The fact that the law clerk overheard the conversation rather than being a direct participant in case deliberations further removes it from the scope of privileged judicial communications.
Since the information pertains to misconduct rather than legal deliberations, the law clerk’s testimony is not protected and may be compelled by compulsory process under the principle of public accountability.
A high-profile case involving allegations of corruption in the Supreme Court has led to a congressional inquiry. The Senate issues a subpoena compelling a Supreme Court clerk to testify regarding the result of the raffle of a controversial case and whether any irregularities occurred in the assignment of justices. The Chief Justice objects, arguing that such information is part of the Court’s internal deliberations and thus privileged.
However, a whistleblower within the judiciary has revealed that the raffle was manipulated to assign the case to a specific justice known to favor a particular party.
The Senate insists that the clerk’s testimony is not part of court deliberations but rather an administrative matter that affects transparency and public accountability. The clerk refuses to testify, citing privilege.
Question:
Should the clerk’s refusal to testify be upheld? Why or why not?
Disqualification by reason of PC > Official Secrets >Deliberate Process Privilege/Judicial Privilege
The clerk cannot refuse to testify because the information being sought—the result of the raffle and any irregularities in the case assignment—is an administrative matter, not part of the Court’s deliberative process.
While court deliberations and internal decision-making processes are privileged, the raffle of cases is not inherently deliberative.Since the Senate is not asking about the justices’ reasoning or confidential discussions but rather about an alleged irregularity in the case assignment, the privilege does not apply.
Reno works as the head chemist of a local pharmaceutical company known as “Otaner Pharma.” which invented the first and most effective vaccine that cures COVID-19. The secret of the trade in the manufacture of the vaccine lies in its main ingredient called “chimera”, whose unique therapeutic properties are very powerful antidote to any and all coronarelated virus. What Otaner Pharma deliberately withheld from the public, however, is the vaccine’s devastating sideeffects. According to the results of the clinical trials it administered, more than fifty percent of the male patients treated with the vaccine is likely to develop permanent and irreversible impotency within five to six months from treatment. One of the first patients who fortunately survived COVID-19, but unfortunately struck by impotency, due to the vaccine, is Waldo.
In a suit for medical tort, can Otaner Pharma invoke trade secret?
Reno may be examined as to the trade secrets in the manufacture of the vaccine, including all its chemical components and side effects. Neither Otaner Pharma nor Reno can invoke the trade secret privilege, because the nondisclosure thereof will invariably cause injustice to the affected or potential patients.
Reno is a renowned highest-paid international chef who works for “Chowqueen”, the world’s largest food conglomerate operating thousands of fast food restaurants in more than a hundred countries around the globe. Chowqueen’s flagship product is its irresistible, tender juicy, saliva-inducing siopao called “chowpao”, made of the finest ingredients and produced by Chowqueen’s state-of-the-art food processing plant. Chowqueen prided itself to be the only food manufacturing company who uses organic meat in its products
Unknown to the general public, however, the secret of chowpao’s legendary taste lies in its main ingredient – organic rat meat. One of Chowqueen’s customers who happened to partake five pieces of chowpao for dinner is Waldo. After dinner, Waldo went home with a full belly. As he was laying in the couch with his eyes glued to the television, he suddenly felt the urge to puke- as he in fact did. As he stepped forward to clean up the mess scattered all over the floor, he was shocked to see his pet cat rush to eat mercilessly the particles of chowpao he just spewed from his mouth.
can chowqueen invoke trade secret?
No, In the case for damages that Waldo files against Chowqueen, Reno may be compelled to testify as to the trade secrets involved in the manufacture of chowpao. And neither Chowqueen nor Reno can invoke trade secret privilege rule because its non-disclosure will perpetuate fraud.
Tricky BAR Question:
Rafael, a well-known investigative journalist, published an article in a national newspaper accusing a government official of embezzling public funds. His article was based on documents allegedly leaked by an anonymous source within the agency. The official sued Rafael for libel, claiming that the documents were forged and that Rafael published them with actual malice. During trial, Rafael was subpoenaed to reveal his source.
Rafael invokes the newsman’s privilege, arguing that he cannot be compelled to disclose the identity of his source. However, the prosecution presents evidence that Rafael not only knew the documents were fake but also actively colluded with his source to fabricate them in exchange for money.
Can Rafael validly refuse to disclose his source under the newsman’s privilege? Why or why not?
Disqualification by reason of PC > Newsman’s Privilege
Rafael cannot validly refuse to disclose his source under the newsman’s privilege because the privilege does not extend to situations where the journalist is involved in illegal activity. The general rule protects journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources, but it does not shield them from liability for civil or criminal violations (such as libel or conspiracy to commit fraud).
Since the prosecution has presented evidence that Rafael knowingly published false information and even colluded in fabricating the documents, his actions go beyond mere reporting. The privilege applies only when the journalist is acting in good faith and within the bounds of ethical journalism—not when they participate in wrongdoing.
Thus, while Rafael may attempt to invoke the privilege, the court is likely to compel disclosure because his reliance on the privilege is tainted by unlawful conduct. He remains subject to both criminal liability (for libel or fraud) and civil liability (for damages due to defamation).
) In a prosecution for murder against Waldo for the death of Reno, Rando testifies that Waldo shot Reno. The records, however, show that Rando was in Ukraine when the killing took place in Cebu, Philippines.
what is the proper objection?
The proper objection would be lack of first-hand knowledge because Rando is not introducing an out-of-court statement.
TOPIC 10
Waldo and Reno were friends. In need for cash, Waldo obtained a loan from Reno in the presence of Rando. After a month, Waldo told Rando that he already paid in full the amount he loaned from Reno. A year thereafter, the friendship between Waldo and Reno turned sour when they fought over the attention and affection of Tintin. Feeling betrayed, Reno posted a message through facebook that he once helped Waldo in his time of great financial need when he allowed Waldo to borrow money from him, but now Waldo stabs him at the back and steals Tintin away from him. Reno then called Waldo ungrateful and a shameless traitor. Aggrieved, Waldo instituted an action for damages arising from libel against Reno. In his complaint, Waldo denies having obtained any loan from Reno.
During trial, can Waldo’s out-of-court statement that he paid his debt in full even when it is favorable to him?
Yes, WWaldo’s out-of-court statement that he paid his debt in full, while not against his interest at the time it was made, as in fact, it was favorable to him, may be introduced in evidence against Waldo by presenting Rando as witness to prove that Waldo indeed borrowed money from Reno.
Mr. Go is sued by Ms. Perez for One Million, collection of sums of money. During the pendency of the case, Mr. Go had a coffee session with his cousin Mr. Siao. In that session, Mr. Go admitted to Mr. Siao that indeed he owed Ms. Perez One Million. During the trial, Ms. Perez called to the witness stand Mr. Siao who testified that Mr. Go confided to him that indeed Mr. Go is indebted to Ms. Perez for One Million. Is the testimony of Mr. Siao admissible? Is it hearsay?
Same case, Mr. Go is sued by Ms. Perez for 1 million. During the pendency of the case, Mr. Siao has a meeting with Ms. Dy, another cousin of Mr. Go. In that meeting, Ms. Dy told Mr. Siao that she was present when Mr. Go obtained money from Ms. Perez and that she is aware that despite repeated demands from Ms. Perez, Mr. Go still fails to pay. During the trial, Ms. Perez called Mr. Siao as a witness to testify that Ms. Dy confided to him that she’s aware that Mr. Go is indebted to Ms. Perez for 1 million. Is the testimony of Mr. Siao hearsay?
Both are hearsay, but one is admissible and the other is not. What’s the difference?
The first is a declaration against interest covered by Section 26, Rule 130, the second is covered by the rule on hearsay.
Section 26 says that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to any relevant matter may be received in evidence against him.
By express provision of Section 26, declaration against interest is admissible against the declarant even if hearsay.
X was charged with estafa. During pre-trial, X’s father, out of desperation, offered to pay the complainant ₱500,000 in exchange for the dropping of the charges. The complainant refused and reported the offer to the prosecution. At trial, the prosecution introduced the rejected offer as evidence of X’s guilt. X objected, arguing that he never authorized nor knew about the offer.
As the judge, should you admit the offer as evidence of X’s guilt?
Implied Admission > Offer of Compromise
No, the offer of compromise is not admissible against X because it was made without his knowledge or acquiescence. Under the rule on compromise in criminal cases, an offer of compromise is only admissible as an implied admission of guilt if made by the accused or with the accused’s consent.
Here,
A, B, and C conspired to murder X. While planning the crime in a secluded warehouse, A suddenly blurted out, “Man, after this job, I really want to have sex with Y. My wife is boring.” The group then continued discussing how to ambush X.
After the murder, A was arrested and, during custodial investigation, his statement about wanting to have sex with Y was included in the police report along with his other admissions about the crime.
Later, A’s wife discovered this statement and sued him for Violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC) under R.A. 9262, claiming that his words constituted psychological abuse under the law.
During trial for VAWC, the prosecution seeks to admit A’s statement about Y as evidence against him.
(a) Is A’s statement admissible against B and C in the murder case?
(b) Is A’s statement admissible against him in the VAWC case?
