part 1 disqualification of witness

5/25/2018 Part 1 Disqualification of Witness

1/3

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity

A credible witness is one who is not disqualified to testify by mental incapacity, crime,

or other cause. Historical Soc. of Dauphin County vs. Kelker, 74 A. 619, 226 Pa. 16, 134 Am. St.Rep. 1010. (Words and Phrases, Vol. 10, p. 340).

As construed by the common law, a credible witness to a will means a competent

witness. Appeal of Clark, 95 A. 517, 114 Me. 105, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 837. (Ibid. p. 341).

Expression credible witness in relation to attestation of wills means competent

witness;chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat is, one competent under the law to testify to fact of

execution of will. Vernons Ann. Civ. St. art. 8283. Moos vs. First State Bank of Uvalde , Tex. Civ.

App. 60 S. W. 2d 888, 889. (Ibid. p. 842)

The term credible, used in the statute of wills requiring that a will shall be attested bytwo credible witnesses, means competent; who, at the time of attesting the will, are legally

competent to testify, in a court of justice, to the facts attested by subscribing the will, the

competency being determined as of the date of the execution of the will and not of the time it

is offered for probate. Smith vs. Goodell, 101 N.E. 255, 256, 258 Ill. 145. (Ibid.)

Credible witnesses, as used in the statute relating to wills, means competent

witnesses that is, such persons as are not legally disqualified from testifying in courts of

justice, by reason of mental incapacity, interest, or the commission of crimes, or other cause

excluding them from testifying generally, or rendering them incompetent in respect of the

particular subject matter or in the particular suit.

Disqualification by reason of marriage

Exception to the Marital Disqualifications Rule

But like all other general rules, the marital disqualification rule has its own exceptions,

both in civil actions between the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses committed by one

against the other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound reasons which, in the

excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule. For instance, 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, the reason based upon such harmony and

tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of

perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and

confidences of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which

through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.

In Ordoo vs. Daquigan, [13] this Court held:
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/oct2005/143439.php#_ftn13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/oct2005/143439.php#_ftn13


2/3

We think that the correct rule, which may be adopted in this jurisdiction, is that

laid down in Cargil vs. State, 35 ALR 133, 220 Pac. 64, 25 Okl. 314, wherein the

court said:

The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon

the person is too narrow; and the rule that any offense remotelyor indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the

exception is too broad. The better rule is that, when an offense

directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal

relation, it comes within the exceptionto the statute that one

shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal

prosecution for a crime committee (by) one against the other.

Where spouse is accused with others

As correctly observed by the court a quo, the disqualification is between husband and

wife, the law not precluding the wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused.

(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR.)

Disqualification by reason of privileged communication

Marital Privileged Communications may be waived

The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the

claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any conduct that may be construed as

implied consent. (JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM vs.ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA)

Attorney-Client Privilege

Certain it is that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every

erroneous order or decision he renders (Rodrigo v. Quijano, etc., 79 SCRA 10 [1977]). To hold

otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts

or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment

(SEELopez v. Corpus, 78 SCRA 374 [1977]; Pilipinas Bank v. Tirona-Liwag, 190 SCRA 834 [1990]).

The error must be gross or patent deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith

(Quizon v. Balthazar, Jr., 65 SCRA 293 [1975]).

The imputed error in this case not being in the premises gross, and the record being

bereft of any persuasive showing of deliberate or malicious intent on the part of respondent

Judge to cause prejudice to any party, the instant administrative proceeding against the latter

must be given short shrift want of basis.(EMMANUEL D. SANTO vs. JUDGE JOSE L. ORLINO)


3/3

Physician-Patient Privilege

The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a physician

who gets information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be

examined without the patients consent as to any facts which would blacken the latters

reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the physician, relate tohim the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the physician to make a

correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician

could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all that had transpired between

him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health at great

risk. (JOSIELENE LARA CHAN v. JOHNNY T. CHAN)

The rule on confidential communications between physician and patient requires that:

a) the action in which the advice or treatment given or any information is to be used is a civil

case; b) the relation of physician and patient existed between the person claiming the privilege

or his legal representative and the physician; c) the advice or treatment given by him or any

information was acquired by the physician while professionally attending the patient; d) the

information was necessary for the performance of his professional duty; and e) the disclosure

of the information would tend to blacken the reputation of the patient.

Executive Privilege

At common law a governmental privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect

to state secrets bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege is based upon

public interest of such paramount importance as in and of itself transcending the individual

interests of a private citizen, even though, as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot

enforce his legal rights.

Exception:

On the other hand, where the claim of confidentiality does not rest on the need to

protect military, diplomatic or other national security secrets but on a general public interest in

the confidentiality of his conversations, courts have declined to find in the Constitution an

absolute privilege of the President against a subpoena considered essential to the enforcement

of criminal laws.

part 1 disqualification of witness

Documents