A.

Rule 130 §20: Qualifications of 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

NOT ground for disqualification

1. Religious belief
2. political belief
3. interest in the outcome of the case, or
4. conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, e.g.
a. A state witness must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude
[Rule 119, Sec. 17 (e)]
b. A person who has been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false
testimony is disqualified from being a witness to a will (Art. 821 NCC)
1.
2.
3. Mental Incapacity or Immaturity
a.
b. Rule 130 §21

Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – The following

persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)
For a mentally defective person to be a witness, he must be mentally capable at the time of
production, even if he was not so at the time of perception. A child must be mentally mature both
at the time of perception and at the time of production.
With regards to the subject matter of the testimony, we must make a distinction between absolute
disqualifications and relative disqualifications. Objections based on absolute disqualifications
may be raised upon the calling of the disqualified witness. Objections based on relative
disqualifications may be raised when it becomes apparent that the subject matter of the testimony
covers inadmissible matters.
Absolutely disqualified witnesses
1. can’t perceive
2. not perceiving
3. can’t make known their perception to others
4. whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, render them
incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others
5. whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
which they are examined and relating them truthfully
6. marital disqualification
7. parental and filial privilege

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

a. Rule 130 §22: Marital Disqualification Rule

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)

Requisites for marital disqualification rule

1. marriage subsists
2. a spouse is a litigant
3. no consent from the spouse-litigant
4. not a civil case by one against the other, or a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
GR: During their marriage, spouses may not testify for or against the other without the consent
of the affected spouse
Exceptions:
1. in a civil case by one against the other, or
2. in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
a. the other or
b. the other’s direct descendants or ascendants
The marital disqualification rule refers to all matters, whether or communicated by one spouse to
the other. It applies only during the existence of the marriage. It can be invoked only if one
spouse is a party to the action. It is an absolute disqualification and can be invoked the moment
that one spouse is called to testify.
This is a testimonial disqualification, as opposed to the testimonial privilege of ascendants and
descendants (Rule 130 §25). Hence, the witness has no say whether the objection is to be raised
or not. The holder of the privilege is the spouse-litigant. When the spouse-litigant consents to the
testimony, the spouse-witness must testify whether he wants to or not.
cf Rule 130 §24 (a), Marital Communications
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. – The following persons
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other
 during the marriage 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;
Marital Marital
Disqualification Communications
Covers all matters Covers only those
regardless of communicated by
source one spouse to
another
Applies during the Applies during and
marriage after the marriage
A spouse must be a A spouse need not
litigant be a litigant
Invoked when a Invoked when the
spouse is called to testimony appears to
testify cover privileged
matters

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

a. Rule 130 §23

Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. – Parties or

assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of
unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against
such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of
such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. (20a)

Requisites for dead man’s statute

1. the witness sought to be disqualified is the plaintiff
2. Executor, administrator or representative of a deceased person, or the person of unsound
mind is the defendant
3. upon claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind
4. as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such
person became of unsound mind.
5. [no counterclaim is filed]
b.
c. Cases
Razon v. IAC, 207 SCRA 234 (1992) The dead man’s statute does not apply where the case is
filed by the estate. Besides, cross-examination of the witness is a waiver of the privilege.
Reyes v. Wells, 54 Phil 102 (1929) If the witness sought to be disqualified is not the plaintiff (e.g.
disinterested 3rd party), the dead man’s statute is not applicable.
Guerrero v. St. Clare’s Realty, 124 SCRA 553 (1983) Mere witnesses not parties to the case are
not disqualified by the dead man’s statute. Furthermore, the rule requires that the defendant must
be the estate. It does not apply where the heirs are being sued in their individual capacities.
“Representatives” are only those who, like the executor, one sued in their representative, not
personal, capacity
Abraham v. Recto-Kasten, 4 SCRA 298 (1962) A cross-examination of the disqualified witness
is a waiver of the dead man’s privilege, even if there was a continuing objection.
Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, 84 Phil. 330 (1949) This in effect ruled that the Dead Man’s statute
can not be invoked against a plaintiff-corporation. Interest no longer disqualifies a witness.
Officers/stockholder of corporation may testify in a case filed against the estate of a deceased by
the corporation
Escolin: In an action where the administrator is the plaintiff, the defendant may testify on facts
occurring prior to the death of the decedent.
Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil 698 (1927) – action must be brought against the estate, not by the
estate, to be covered under the dead man’s statute
Escolin: The dead man’s rule does not apply in cadastral cases.
Escolin: If there is no instrument evidencing the claim, it would be difficult to prove the claim in
the estate proceeding because of the dead man’s statute. However, if there is such an instrument,
it is not barred by the dead man’s statute (Neibert v. Neibert)
Goñi v. CA, 144 SCRA 222 (1986) – heirs of a deceased are “representatives” within the ambit
of the dead man’s statute; waived by defendant if he files counterclaim against plaintiff; adverse
party may testify to transactions or communications with deceased which were made with an
agent of such person if the agents is still alive and can testify as long as it is confined to the
transactions
B.
Privileged Communications
1. marital
2. attorney-client
3. physician-patient
4. priest-penitent
5. state secrets
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. – The following persons
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
This is a rule of relative disqualification. Each of those enumerated is disqualified to testify as to
specific matters only. It does not disqualify them from testifying on matters not privileged.
Hence, it is improper to object to their testimony upon mere subpoena. One must wait until it
becomes apparent that their testimony covers matters that are privileged (e.g. upon asking of a
question that covers privileged matters; when the purpose of their testimony as admitted by the
offeror covers privileged matters) before one may properly object.
Though a relative disqualification, it is nevertheless a testimonial disqualification, as opposed to
the testimonial privilege of ascendants and descendants (Rule 130 §25). [careful not to be
confused in the multiple meanings of the word “privilege”] Hence, the witness has no say
whether the objection is to be raised or not. When the holder of the privilege (not necessarily the
opposing party) consents to the testimony, the witness must testify.
Note that the wording of the law is to the effect that “(someone) may not be examined without
the consent of (another).” The law does not say that one can not testify or be examined over the
objection of another. The wording of the law is to the effect that an objection of the other party in
the privileged communication is not necessary for the privilege to hold. Consent of the other
party in the privileged communication is an act that needs to be proved for the testimony to be
admitted. This is not to say that failure of a such a party to object will never render such
testimony admissible. This is to say that where the other party to the privileged communication is
not a litigant in the case, and privileged communication is offered in evidence without the
consent of such party, the litigant against whom the testimony is offered may object to its
admission on the ground of privileged communication. Where the other party in the privileged
communication is a litigant, then his failure to object will be taken as a consent to the testimony
or a waiver of a privilege.
The communication that is privileged need not be in any form. It can be oral or written.
The communication ceases to be privileged if knowingly communicated in the presence of 3 rd
persons. In such a case, the privilege may not be invoked at all. However, if the privileged
communication was within the surreptitious observation of a 3 rd person, then the communication
can be invoked if either the communicator or communicatee called to testify. However, the
privilege can not be invoked if the 3rd person is called to testify.
1.
2. Marital Communications
a.
b. Rule 130 §24 (a)
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage 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;
Requisites for Marital Communications Rule
1. communication received
a. from the spouse
b. in confidence
c. during the marriage
2. without the consent of the spouse
Note that the marital communication rule applies even after the marriage. It applies only to
matters communicated by one spouse to another in confidence. It does not cover knowledge of
matters that a spouse obtains from a source other than other spouse. It can be invoked even if
neither spouse is a party to the action. It is a relative disqualification and can be invoked only
when it is apparent that the testimony would cover privileged matters.
The exceptions to the rule are
1. in a civil case by one against the other, or
2. in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants

cf Rule 130 §22: Marital Disqualification Rule

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)
The marital disqualification rule refers to all matters, whether or communicated by one spouse to
the other. It applies only during the existence of the marriage. It can be invoked only if one
spouse is a party to the action. It is an absolute disqualification and can be invoked the moment
that one spouse is called to testify.
Marital Marital
Disqualification Communications
(Rule 130, Sec. 22) (Rule 130, Sec. 24
[a])
Covers all matters Covers only matters
regardless of source communicated by
one spouse to
another, during the
marriage
Applies during the Applies during and
marriage after the marriage
A spouse must be a A spouse need not
litigant be a litigant
Invoked when a Invoked when the
spouse is called to testimony appears
testify to cover privileged
matters
MEMORIZE!
c.
d. Cases
People v. Carlos, 47 Phil. 626 (1925) – where the privilege communication from one spouse to
the other comes into the hands of a 3rd party, without collusion or voluntary disclosure on the part
of either spouse, not privilege; illegality of seizure must be raised by motion before trial for
return of letter; unanswered letter inadmissible
 3. Attorney-Client Privilege
a. Rule 130 §24 (b)
(b) 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 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 attorney-client privilege
1. existence of an attorney-client relationship
2. witness is an attorney
3. as to communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon
4. the communication was made in confidence
5. communication was made in the course of, or with a view to professional employment
The privilege extends to the attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. The difference being consent of only the
client is needed for the attorney to testify. However, the consent of both the attorney and the
client is necessary for the attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk to testify.
The attorney-client privilege does not apply if the attorney was sued by his client.
b. Cases
Uy Chico v. Union Life, 29 Phil. 163 (1915) – communication made by client to attorney for
purpose of being communicated to others not privileged, e.g. compromise agreement
Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 262 SCRA 124 (1996) – prosecution can not use attorneys as leverage
to compel them to name their clients; client’s identity is protected when there is a strong
probability exists that revealing client’s name would implicate him in the very activity for which
he sought advice
Barton v. Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co., 46 Phil. 938 (1924) – letter from client to attorney
obtained by adverse party, admitted authentic in court, not privileged regardless whether legally
or illegally obtained (what about constitutional rule of exclusion on evidence obtained in
violation of the right to privacy of communication and correspondence?); one who overhears the
communication with or without client’s knowledge is not privileged
Orient Insurance v. Revilla, 54 Phil. 919 (1930) – introduction in evidence of a part of a paper by
one party waives privilege as to other parts of the same writing; when a party invokes BER, it is
the party who produces original who is deemed to have introduced it in evidence; contract for
attorney’s fees is not privileged; there is no partial waiver of privilege
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) – privilege does not extend to information gathered by
an attorney from witnesses; WP can not be secured without sufficient justification
Upjohn Company v. US, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) – Privilege extends to information given by
employees to corporate not to facts.
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 732 F.2d 447 (1983) – The general rule is the identity of a client
is not protected; legal advice exception may be defeated through prima facie showing that the
legal representation was secured in furtherance of present or intended continuing illegality, as
where the representation itself is part of a larger conspiracy; it is the link between the client and
the communication, not the link between client and possibility of potential criminal prosecution
which is protected; last link exception is abandoned; disclosure might possibly implicate client in
criminal activity not an exception
US v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir. 1979) – statement made by co-defendant to an
investigator acting for defendant’s counsel protected; communication by client to attorney
remain privileged when attorney shares them with co-defendant for a common defense
US v. Gordon-Nikkar, 518 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1975) – protection does not extend to the
communication regarding an intended crime; communication divulged to strangers not protected
US v. Nobles, 422 US 225 (1975) – WPD waived when client presents investigator as witness
People v. Sandiganbayan, 275 SCRA 505 (1997)
4.
5. Physician-Patient Privilege
a. Rule 130 §24 (c)
(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, and which would blacken
the reputation of the patient;
Waivers of the physician-patient privilege, cf Rule 28, Sec. 3 and 4
Sec. 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the party examined, the party causing the
examination to be made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the
examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions. After such request and
delivery, the party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to
receive from the party examined a like report of any examination, previously or thereafter
made, of the same mental or physical condition. If the party examined refuses to deliver such
report, the court on motion and notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as
are just, and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court may exclude his
testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
Sec. 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so
ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege
he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the
testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect
of the same mental or physical examination. (4)
Requisites for physician-client privilege
1. civil case
2. witness is a person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
3. 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
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity
5. the information would blacken the reputation of the patient
Escolin: The old rule used the word “character” (what the person actually is). The new rules use
the word “reputation” (what people think of the person).
Note that the patient need not be the source of the information.
Only persons authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics are covered by the privilege.
Hence, nurses, midwives and other people who attend to the ill can be called to testify as to any
matter.
The privilege does not cover expert opinion as long as the witness does not testify to matters
specifically referring to the patient.
There is no physician-patient privilege in criminal cases.
de Leon: What about civil cases impliedly instituted with criminal cases?

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