Parental and filial privilege

Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege.—No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

Who may not be compelled to testify?

1. Person against his parents or other direct ascendants (FILIAL PRIVILEGE)

2. Person against his children or other direct descendants (PARENTAL PRIVILEGE)

Rationale of the rule

To preserve the harmonious relations between parent and child which could ruptured through testifying in court. Furthermore, perjury may result because the parent or the child may give false testimony to protect the other. 

Testimonial privilege not a testimonial disqualification

Note that this is a testimonial privilege, not a testimonial disqualification (§22-24 of Rule 130). Here, the witness is the holder of the privilege and has the power to invoke or waive the privilege. He cannot be compelled but he is not prohibited to testify. The relative against whom he is testifying cannot invoke nor waive the privilege. 

Can a parent testify against a child or a descendant?

Yes. But he cannot be compelled.

Can a child testify against his parent or ascendant?

Yes. But he cannot be compelled.

Instance when a child can be compelled to testify 

"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". (Art. 215 Family Code) 

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.

and the testimony of the descendant is indispensable. In such cases, the descendant can be required to testify.

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.

read more...

Dead Man's Statute

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.

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. The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind

4. The testimony to be given is on a matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.

How waived

1.  By not objecting to plaintiff’s testimony on prohibited matters

2.  By not cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters

3.  By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters

4. When the plaintiff’s deposition is taken by the representative of the estate or when counsel for the representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters occurring ___ the deceased’s lifetime. 

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 3^rd 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 cannot 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

read more...

Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity

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.

● 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.

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.

read more...

Qualification 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.

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)

Who are disqualified from testifying?

1. Total or absolute disqualification (§ 20 and 21, Rule 130, RC)

 

    a. can’t perceive

    b. not perceiving

    c. can’t make known their perception to others

    d. Disqualified by reason of mental incapacity

    e. Disqualified by reason of mental immaturity

2. Partial or relative disqualification – the witness is qualified to be a witness but is disqualified from testifying on certain matters (§ 22-24, Rule 130, RC)

    a. Disqualified by reason of marriage

b. Disqualified by reason of death or insanity of adverse party

c. Disqualified by reason of privileged communication

Need for distinction

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.

read more...