Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

III.B-Testimonial Evidence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - III. Admissions and Confessions
        
        A. Admissions of a Party / By Silence (Rule 130, Sections 27 & 33; see also Rule 132, Sec. 14)
        
        B. Compromises (Rule 130, Section 28; see also Rule 116, Section 1(f); Rule 118, Sections 1 and 2; RA 8424, Section 204; PD 1508, Sections 2, 4, 6 and 10)
        
        C. Res Inter Alios Acta (Rule 130, Sections 29 and 35) - Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them. This contemplates two branches.
        
        Admissions by a third Party (130.29)
        
        Similar acts as Evidence (130.35)
        
        Admissions by a Third Party -
        
        GR (130.29) - The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, thus statements against third parties, including extrajudicial admissions inadmissible against co-accused. (People v. Cachuela)
        
        Exception - By virtue of a particular relationship between them. This is because A third party may be so united in interest with the party-opponent that the other person's admissions may be receivable against the party himself.
        
        Similar Acts as Evidence (130.35) -
        
        GR - Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he/she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time
        
        3 more items...
        
        Scope - The rule only applies to extrajudicial declarations (admissions and confessions).
        
        When the declarant repeats his extrajudicial declaration in open court and his co-accused are given the opportunity to cross-examine him, the declaration becomes admissible against the co-accused.
        
        E. Confessions (Art. III, Sections 12 and 17, 1987 Consti; Rule 130, Section 34, Rule 133, Section 3) - The declaration of an accused acknowledging his/her guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him/her | An acknowledgment in express words or terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged.
        
        Requisites for Admissibility of Confession -
        
        Express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt
        
        Facts admitted constitutes a criminal offense
        
        Given voluntarily
        
        Intelligently made, realizing the importance or legal significance of the act
        
        No violation of Secs. 12 and 17, Art. III of the Constitution
        
        1 more item...
        
        Distinguished from Admissions (People v. Licayan) -
        
        A confession - is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged,
        
        An admission - is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to issue, and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt.
        
        In other words, an admission is something less than a confession and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
        
        Admissibility against Co-Accused (People v. Janjalani) -
        
        Extrajudicial Confession - admissible against the confessant, but not the co-accused, as there is deprivation of opportunity to cross-examine.
        
        Judicial Confession - admissible against the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are afforded the opportunity to cross examine the former.
        
        1 more item...
        
        SECTION 29. Admission by Third Party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (28)
        
        SECTION 35. Similar Acts as Evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a speciﬁc intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
        
        REMEMBER UNG JUDICIAL V EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION SIR ASKED THIS A LOT
        
        ALSO OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO PROVE CONSPIRACY MAY MEAN INAPPROPRIATE EXCLUSION
        
        Civil Cases -
        
        GR - An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. Same goes for evidence of conduct or statements made in comrpomise negotiations.
        
        XCPN - Evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose such as
        2a. proving bias or prejudice of a witness;
        2b. negativing a contention of undue delay; or
        2c. proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution
        
        Criminal Cases -
        
        GR - An offer of compromise by the accused may be received as an implied admission of guilt
        
        XCPN - In cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by the law to be compromised, or if the offer of compromise was later withdrawn
        
        Pleas of Guilty - Not admissible against the accused who made the plea or offer. This covers:
        
        Plea of guilty later withdrawn;
        
        Unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense; or
        
        Statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn
        
        Offer to pay medical, hospital or other expenses (130.28) - Offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury
        
        Plea for Forgiveness - A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. [People v. De Guzman y Sico]
        
        XPs: [People v. Godoy]
        
        The accused shows that the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason
        
        Where the accused was not present at the time the offer for monetary consideration was made
        
        No implied admission can be drawn from the efforts to arrive at a settlement outside the court, where
        (1) the accused did not take part in any of the negotiations and
        (2) the effort to settle the case was in accordance with the established tribal customs
        
        GR - An offer of compromise is inadmissible.
        
        XCPN -
        2a. Where, however, the amount named in the offer to accept a certain sum in settlement appears to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of value, it is relevant.
        2b. The rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations does not apply where there is no denial expressed or implied of liability, and the only questions discussed relate to the amount to be paid.
        
        Admission by a Party - The ff: elements must concur:
        
        The act, declaration or omission, Of a party
        
        As to a relevant fact
        
        Against his or her interest
        [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
        
        Made out of court - (Those made in court are governed by Sec. 4, Rule 129.) [2 Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
        
        Offered and presented in court in an admissible manner (e.g. non-hearsay)
        
        Extrajudicial Admissions (People v. Lorenzo) - A statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and tending in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt
        
        Requisites for Admissibility -
        
        They must involve matters of fact;
        
        They must be categorical and definite;
        
        They must be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
        
        Is adverse to admitter’s interests
        
        Conversion of Extrajudicial to Judicial Admission (Yapyuco v. Sadniganbayan) -
        
        GR - Extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against said accused, but is inadmissible against the other accused.
        
        XCPN - But if the declarant or admitter repeats in court his extrajudicial admission during the trial and the other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, the admission is admissible against both accused because then, it is transposed into a judicial admission.
        
        Judicial v. Extrajudicial Admissions -
        
        When Made
        1a. Judicial - Made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
        1b. Extrajudicial - Any other admission [Secs. 27 and 33, Rule 130]
        
        Proof -
        2a. Judicial - Does not require proof [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
        2b. Extrajudicial - Must still be formally offered in evidence (Note the language of Sec. 27, Rule 130: “may be given in evidence”)
        
        Presumption -
        3a. Judicial - May be conclusive unless contradicted [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
        3b. Extrajudicial - Rebuttable
        
        Form - Both may be written, oral express or implied.
        
        Admissions by Silence (130.33) - An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him/her to do so, may be given in evidence against him/her.
        
        When Deemed an Admission (People v. Paragsa) - FLUMK
        
        MATTER AFFECTING RIGHTS - That the statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in which he was interested and which naturally calls for a response;
        
        LIBERTY - That he was at a liberty to make a denial;
        
        UNDERSTOOD - Person heard or understood the statement;
        
        MATERIAL - That the fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue
        
        KNOWLEDGE - That the facts were within his knowledge; and
        
        2 more items...
        
        Effect of Admission (RP v. Bautista) - It may be given in evidence against the admitter. This is because No man would make any declaration against himself unless it is true.
        
        Flight - This can cover even flight without valid explanation. Considered an admission of guilt.
        
        SECTION 27. Admission of a Party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her. (26a)
        
        SECTION 33. Admission by Silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given in evidence against him or her. (32a)
        
        IV. Conduct and Character As Evidence A. Rule 130, Secs. 35-36; 54; Rule 132, Section 3; Article 1256, Civil Code; Section 6, RA 8505
        
        Previous Conduct
        
        Character Evidence (130.54) -
        
        GR - Inadmissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion
        
        Character - the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others.
        
        Good moral character" - includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that measures up as good among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.
        
        1 more item...
        
        2. XCPN (Rule 130.54) - Has specific exceptions for criminal, civil and both.
        
        Criminal Cases - Character of the following may be admitted:
        
        Accused – May prove his/her good moral character, which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
        1a. Prosecution – May not prove the bad moral character of the accused, except in rebuttal.
        
        Offended Party – May be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
        
        2 more items...
        
        How Proven - In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by:
        
        Testimony as to reputation; or
        
        Testimony in the form of an opinion
        
        1 more item...
        
        Habit (Bank of Commerce v. Manalo) - Habit must be alleged and proven.
        
        How proven -
        
        The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit.
        
        The examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct.
        
        Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion.
        
        SECTION 35. Similar Acts as Evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a speciﬁc intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (34a)
        
        1 more item...
      - Non-Disqualifications
        
        Effect of Beliefs - Religious/political beliefs as well as interest in the outcome of the case is not a ground for disqualification unless otherwise provided by law.
        
        Conviction (NCC 821) -
        
        GR - Qualified to be a witness.
        
        XCPN - A person convicted of falsification, perjury or false testimony cannot be a witness to a will. Or other similar circumstances.
        
        Deaf Mute (People v. Longhas) - A deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as they have the faculty to make those observations known to others.
        
        1) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath;
        
        (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and
        
        (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
        
        Effect of Relationship (People v. Daen Jr.,) -
        
        GR - Mere relationship does not impair credibility
        
        XCPN - It must be clearly shown that:
        2a. Testimony was inherently improbable or defective;
        2b. Improper/evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate falsely
        
        Minority (People v. Golem Sota) - Provision disqualifying mentally incapacitated/immature people deleted. Thus, minors capacitated now.
      - Disqualifications
        
        Other Disqualifications
        
        State Secrets (130.24e) -
        
        Whom - A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her tenure
        
        Prohibition - communications made to him or her in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
        
        Duration & Scope - privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may have obtained the information, provided that the original parties to the communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.
        
        Trade Secrets (130.26) -
        
        Whom - Any person
        
        Prohibition - a trade secret
        
        XCPN - unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require
        
        Executive Privilege (Senate v. Ermita) - Executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. While executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim of EP may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. There is no recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure.
        
        These may be exempted by executive privilege.
        
        Question hour - attendance discretionary The framers of the 1987 Constitution removed the mandatory nature of appearance during the question hour in the present Constitution so as to conform more fully to a system of separation of powers.
        
        Inquiries in aid of legislation attendance discretionary - attendance compulsory
        
        Elements of Presidential Communications Privilege (Neri v. Senate) -
        
        The protected communication must relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable presidential power."
        
        The communication must be authored or "solicited and received" by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in "operational proximity" with the President.
        
        The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought "likely contains important evidence" and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
        
        Spousal Immunity/Marital Disqualification (130.23) -
        
        GR - During their marriage, wife and husband cannot testify against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.
        
        XCPN - Civil case by one against the other
        2b. Criminal case committed by one against the other or the other's direct descendants or ascendants.
        
        Rationale (Alvarez v. Ramirez) - Identify of interests between the husband and wife. Thus, testimony against the other brings danger of perjury. Might also lead to domestic violence.
        
        When Inapplicable (Alvarez v. Ramirez) - When during the marriage, relations are so strained as to remove the peace and tranquility sought to be protected, the identity of interests disappear and there is no more danger of perjury.
        
        Waiver (People v. Francisco) - If one spouse imputes the commission of a crime against the other, the latter may testify against the former.
        
        Scope - includes utterance as to facts or mere production of documents. It does not only prevent disclosure of matters communicated in nuptial confidence but is an absolute prohibition against the spouse’s testifying to any facts affecting the other however these facts may have been acquired.
        
        This applies when one spouse should be a party to the case. A total prohibition on any testimony against the spouse of the witness.
        
        Distinguished from Marital Privilege -
        
        Scope -
        1a. Immunity - Testimony
        1b. Privilege - any communication received in confidence
        
        When Applicable -
        2a. Immunity - During the Marriage
        2b. Privilege - During or after the marriage
        
        Role of the Spouses -
        3a. Immunity - Applies when one spouse should be a party to the case
        3b. Privilege - When neither of the spouses need to be a party.
        
        Conciliation Proceedings (LC 233) - All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications.
        
        Child Witnesses (AM 00407) - Sexual abuse shield Rule
        
        General Rule - The following evidence is inadmissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
        1a. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
        1b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
        
        Exception - Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.
        
        Presumption of Competency - Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
        
        To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence.
        
        Contesting Competency of Child Witness -
        
        The court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party.
        
        A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competency examination
        
        It must present proof that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.
        
        The age of the child by itself is not sufficient basis for a competency examination.
        
        Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted only by the judge.
        
        Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the child.
        
        The questions asked at the competency examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child.
        
        It shall focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
        
        It shall not be related to the issues at trial
        
        Other important rules for child witnesses
        
        The court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice.
        
        Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead, confuse, frighten, or intimidate the child.
        
        Anti-Money Laundering Act
        
        Data Privacy (RA 10173 Sec. 15) - Personal information controllers may invoke the principle of privileged communication over privileged information that they lawfully control or process. Subject to existing laws and regulations, any evidence gathered on privileged information is inadmissible
        
        Food and Drug Administration (RA 3720) -
        
        GR - Prohibits the use of a person to his own advantage, or revealing, any information acquired under authority Board of Food Inspection and Board of Food and Drug, or concerning any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to protection.
        
        XCPN - Reveal to the Secretary of Health or officers or employees of the Department of Health or to the courts when relevant in any judicial
        proceeding under this Act
        
        Privileged Communication - Privilege is a rule of law that, to protect a particular relationship or interest allows a witness to refrain from giving testimony or, a party to prevent the witness from revealing certain information.
        
        Marital Privilege/Communications (130.24) -
        
        Duration - During OR after marriage, the husband and wife cannot be examined without the consent of the other.
        
        Scope -
        
        GR - As to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage.
        
        XCPN - Civil case by one against the other
        2b. Criminal case committed by one against the other or the other's direct descendants or ascendants.
        
        Exceptions [Herrera] -
        
        When the communication was not intended to be kept in confidence
        
        When the communication was made prior to the marriage
        
        Waiver of the privilege - May be made by failure of the spouse to object or, calling of the spouse as witness on cross examination or any similar conduct.
        
        Third Parties (People v. Carlos) - If the privileged communication comes intot he hands of a third party, without collusion or voluntary disclosure on t he part of either of the spouses.
        
        Test for Exception of privilege (People v. Castañeja) - Test is WHEN AN OFFENSE DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE CONJUGAL RELATION, IT COMES WITHIN THE EXCEPTION,
        
        Strained Relationships (Alvarez v. Ramirez) - Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed
        
        Self-Defense Testimony (People v. Francisco) - If the Husband testified against his wife, it is only common sense that the Wife will deny upon rebuttal
        
        Thus, it is only a natural consequence that the Wife will testify against the Husband after the Latter imputed the Former
        
        Objection; When Made (People v. Pasensoy) - The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness. The incompetency is waived by failure to make a timely objection to the admission of spouse’s testimony.
        
        Letter between Husband & Wife - Privileged communication. But, overhearing conversation of the same topic by a third person is not privileged.
        
        This applies when neither of the spouses need to be a party.
        
        Attorney-Client Privilege (130.24) -
        
        Whom - An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law
        
        Prohibition - Without the consent of the client
        2a. Any communication made by the client
        2b. Any advice given in the course of, or with a view to professional employment
        
        Persons Assisting the Attorney -
        
        Whom - Atty.'s secretary, stenographer, clerk or other persons assisting the attorney
        
        Prohibition - Without the consent of the client AND employer
        2a. Cannot be examined concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.
        
        Exceptions -
        
        CRIME/FRAUD - If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
        
        DECEASED CLIENT - a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
        
        BREACH OF DUTY - a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client. or by the client to his or her lawyer
        
        ATTESTED DOCUMENT - communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness;
        
        JOINT CLIENTS - a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two [(2)] or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
        
        INTENDED COMMUNICATION (Uy Chico v. Union Life) - Communications made by a client to his attorney for the purpose of being communicated to others are not privileged after they have been so communicated, and may be proved by the testimony of the attorney.
        
        Deceased Client - Rationale is because attorney-client privilege is inapplicable yet, as you cannot determine who is entitled to the estate.
        
        Revelation of Client's Name (Regala v. Sandiganbayan ) -
        
        GR - a lawyer must divluge the name or identity of the client.
        
        XCPN -
        
        IDENTITY - Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice.
        
        LIABILITY - Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; his identity is privileged.
        
        SOLE EVIDENCE - Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged.
        
        SUBJECT MATTER - The content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance.
        
        NATURE - where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction
        
        1 more item...
        
        Rationale of Fraud Exception (Regala v. Sandiganbayan) - The reason of the principle which holds such communications not to be privileged is that it is not within the professional character of a lawyer to give advice upon such subjects, and that it is no part of the profession of an attorney or counselor at law to be advising persons as to how they may commit crimes or frauds, or how they may escape the consequences of contemplated crimes and frauds
        
        Identity of Client (Regala v. Sandiganbayan) -
        
        GR - the privilege cannot be invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the client.
        
        XCPNS -
        2a. When a strong probability exists that revealing the name would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice;
        2b. When disclosure would open the client to liability;
        2c. When the name would furnish the only link
        that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict
        
        Duration - In the absence of a statute, the privilege is permanent. It may even be claimed by a client’s executor or administrator after the client’s death
        
        Physician-Patient Privilege (130.24) -
        
        Whom - A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy.
        
        Prohibition - cannot in a CIVIL CASE , without the consent of the
        patient, be examined as to any confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist
        
        Other Persons - This privilege also applies to persons, including members of the patient's family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist.
        
        Psychotherapist Defined -
        
        A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition.
        
        A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly engaged
        
        When Inapplicable -
        
        Communication was not given in confidence
        
        Communication was irrelevant to the professional employment
        
        Communication was made for an unlawful purpose
        
        Communication was intended for the
        commission/concealment of a crime
        
        Communication was intended to be made public/divulged in court
        
        When there was a waiver
        
        When the doctor was presented as an expert witness and only hypothetical problems were presented to him
        
        Expert Witness (Lim v. CA) - A doctor is allowed to be an expert witness when he does not disclose anything obtained in the course of his examination, interview and treatment of a patient.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Requisites (Lim v. CA) -
        
        the privilege is claimed in a civil case
        
        the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
        
        such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity
        
        the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity
        
        the information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the patient.
        
        The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed
        
        This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties.
        
        The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered.
        
        The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation.
        
        Penitent Privilege (130.24d) -
        
        Whom - A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so
        
        Prohibition - cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be examined as to any communication or 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.
        
        Q. Pwede ba nuns
        
        Parental & Filial Privilege (130.25) - This is a privilege to NOT testify, i.e., the witness can opt to waive this privilege.
        
        Whom - Any person
        
        Prohibition - cannot be compelled to testify against their parents, direct ascendants, children, direct descendants.
        
        XCPN - when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one parent against the other.
        
        Family Code - no descendant, criminal case, against parents or grandparents. (FC 215)
        
        Newsman's Privilege (RA 53) -
        
        GR - Publisher, editor 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
        
        XCPN - Court or a House/Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by security of the State
        
        Informer's Privilege (119.9; PD 749; RA 6981) -
        
        Nature of Privilege - May only be invoked by persons protected. Similarly, may be waived, either expressly or impliedly.
        
        MAN-P-I
    - - When Determined - Qualification is determined at the time the witness is produced for examination or the taking of depositions. If the witness is a child, competence at the time of occurrence is considered.
        
        Distinguished from Credibility - Credibility goes to the weight and trustworthiness and reliability of the testimony. Independent from qualification, which deals into capacity to become a witness.
        
        Remedy for Error on Competence (Icutanim v. Hernandez) - Appeal, not a petition for certiorari is proper method to assail competency of a witness wrongfully admitted.
        
        Extent of Testimony (130.22) - A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.
        
        Requirements to Identification Testimony (People v. Teehankee) -
        
        PERCEPTION - Witnessing a crime, whether as a victim or a bystander, involves perception of an event actually occurring
        
        MEMORIZE - Witness must memorize details of the event.
        
        RECALL AND COMMUNICATE - Witness must be able to recall and communicate accurately
        
        Rule on Out-of-Court Identification (People v. Pineda) - May be done, provided that:
        
        A series of photographs must be shown, and not merely that of the suspect.
        
        When a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect
        
        Totality of Circumstances Test - Used to determine credibility of out-of-court identification. Must consider:
        
        VIEW & ATTENTION - Witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, as well as degree of attention at that time
        
        VIEW AND ATTENTION is the result of many factors, among others: exposure time, frequency of exposure, the criminal incident's degree of violence, the witness' stress levels and expectations, and the witness' activity during the commission of the crime
        
        PRIOR DESCRIPTION - Accuracy of any prior description given by the witness
        
        However, discrepancies that are properly accounted for, should not be fatal to the prosecution’s case
        
        CERTAINTY - Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. Tested in court during cross-examination
        
        TIME - Length of time between the crime and the identification
        
        People are less accurate and complete in their eyewitness accounts after a long retention interval than after a short one
        
        SUGGESTIVENESS - Suggestiveness of the identification procedure
        
        Verbal and non-verbal information might become inappropriate cues or suggestions to a witness
        
        In appraising the suggestiveness of identification procedures, this Court has previously considered prior or contemporaneous actions of law enforcers, prosecutors, media, or even fellow witnesses
        
        Showup (People v. Baconguis) - A showup has been held to be an underhanded mode of identification for "being pointedly suggestive, generating confidence where there was none, activating visual imagination, and, all told, subverting their reliability as an eyewitness."
        
        Danger Signals on Erroneous Identification (People v. Pienda) -
        
        The witness originally stated that he could not identify anyone;
        
        The identifying witness knew the accused before the crime, but made no accusation against him when questioned by the police;
        
        A serious discrepancy exists between the identifying witness' original description and the actual description of the accused;
        
        Before identifying the accused at the trial, the witness erroneously identified some other person;
        
        Other witnesses to the crime fail to identify the accused;
        
        Before trial, the witness sees the accused but fails to identify him;
        
        Before the commission of the crime, the witness had limited opportunity to see the accused;
        
        The witness and the person identified are of different racial groups;
        
        During his original observation of the perpetrator of the crime, the witness was unaware that a crime was involved;
        
        A considerable time elapsed between the witness' view of the criminal and his identification of the accused;
        
        Several persons committed the crime; and
        
        the witness fails to make a positive trial identification.
        
        Determination of Credibility (People v. Domingcil) - The evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
        
        Error in Testimony (People v. Alcantara) - A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony, considering the lapse of time and treachery of human memory.
        
        Thus, we have followed the rule in accord with human nature and experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to senses