TESTIMONY - Witnesses
TESTIMONY - Witnesses
Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. – Except as provided in the next succeeding section,
all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be
witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. (18 a)
Qualifications of witnesses
1. can perceive
2. perceiving
3. can make known their perception to others
Relative disqualifications
1. dead man’s statute
2. marital communication privilege
3. attorney-client privilege
4. an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity
5. Physician-Patient Privilege
6. Priest-Penitent Privilege
7. State Secrets
c.
d. Cases
People v. de Jesus, 129 SCRA 4 (1984) – even though feeble minded, there is no showing that
she could not convey her ideas by words or signs ___ competent; even if she had difficulty
comprehending the questions
People v. Salomon, 229 SCRA 402 (1993) – being mental retardate is not per se a
disqualification; although speech was slurred, testimony was positive, clear, plain and
unambiguous
People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, Feb. 2, 1996 – any child, regardless of age, can be a
witness as long as he meets the qualifications for competency: observation, recollection, and
communication
4.
5. Marriage
Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage, neither the husband
nor the wife 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. (20a)
Note that the exceptions under the marital disqualification and marital communications rule are
the same.
b. Cases
Ordoño v. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 (1975) The wife can therefore testify against her husband in
such a case for rape against her daughter because it is considered a crime against the wife. When
an offense directly attacks, or directly impairs the conjugal relation, it comes within the
exception to the marital disqualification rule.
de Leon: Note that when this case was decided, a crime by a spouse against the other’s
descendant was not yet an express exception to the marital disqualification rule.
People v. Castañeda, 88 SCRA 562 (1979) The wife can testify against the husband in a case for
falsification of the wife’s signature in public documents to sell share of wife in conjugal property
because it is a crime committed by the husband against the wife.
Lezama v Rodriguez, 23 SCRA 1166 (1968) Wife who is a co-defendant of her husband in a case
of collusive fraud, where their interests are not separate, can not be examined as a hostile witness
by the adverse party
People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694 (1947) – when the husband imputes crime against wife, he
waives the marital disqualification rule
6.
7.
8. Dead Man’s Statute
1) Cases
Lim v. CA, 214 SCRA 273 (1992) The physician-patient privilege is not violated by permitting
physician to give expert testimony regarding hypothetical facts.
Krohn v. CA, 233 SCRA 146 (1994) Non-physician testimony on a medical psychologist’s report
is not covered by the physician patient privilege. This is hearsay but there was no objection.
6. Rule 130 §24(d): Priest-Penitent Privilege
(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 minister or priest belongs;
Requisites for Priest-Penitent Privilege
1. witness is a minister or priest
2. as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character
3. in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs
7.
8. State Secrets
a. Rule 130 §24(e)
(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. (21a)
Requisites for the State Secrets rule
1. witness is a public officer
2. as to communications made to him in official confidence
3. the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure
b. Cases
US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) – absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or
sensitive national security secrets, executive privilege can not prevail over due process
Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 142 SCRA 523 (1986) – confidential information is not
necessarily privileged; no public interest is prejudiced by disclosure, thus not protected; is there a
need for a law to declare it confidential?
9. Newsman’s Privilege
a. RA 53 as amended by RA 1477
Sec. 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher,
editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general
circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing
in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless
the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the
security of the State.
Requisites of newsman’s privilege
1. publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter
2. of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation
3. cannot be compelled to reveal
4. as to the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication
5. related in confidence
Exception: Court, a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by
the security of the State.
b. Cases
Matter of Farber (A.B.), 394 A. 2d 330 (1978) – Constitution prevails over shield law, but
entitled to hearing to prove relevance.
10. Bank Deposits (RA 1405)
Sec. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential
nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or
upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in
cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
Note that the privilege applies only to bank deposits. As to other property being held by a bank,
bank personnel may be examined upon order of a court (Sec. 55.1 [d], RA 8791, General
Banking Act of 2000).
C.
D.
E.
F.
G. Parental and Filial Privilege
1. Rule 130 §25
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege. – No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)
There is no distinction between legitimate or illegitimate relations.
Note that this is a testimonial privilege, not a testimonial disqualification, found in §22-24 of
Rule 130 [careful not to be confused in the multiple use of the word “privilege”]. Here, the
witness is the holder of the privilege and has the power to invoke or waive the privilege. The
relative against whom he is testifying can not invoke nor waive the privilege. However this must
be construed in the light of Art. 215 of the Family Code
Art. 215. 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. (315a)
Hence, a descendant may be compelled to testify in a criminal case where
1. the descendant-witness himself is the victim, or
2. the descendant-witness’s parent commits a crime against the descendant-witness’s other
parent.
Note that an ascendant may not be compelled to testify even if it is a crime by the descendant
against the ascendant-witness. The ascendant-witness may testify voluntarily though.
2. Case
People v. Publico, 7 CAR (2s) 703 (1972) – information given by child to 3rd person is protected