Rea Jane B. MalcampoDecember 16, 2014Evidence

1. Is a lawyer barred from testifying against his client on matters disclosed by the client regarding his intention to commit a crime, which at the time of the lawyers intended testimony, had already been committed by the client? Explain by discussing the coverage of client-lawyer privilege. (10 pts.)

The following requisites must be present for the attorney-client privilege to apply:(a) There must be a communication made by the client to the attorney or an advice given by the attorney to his client; (b) The communication or advice must have been given; and(c) The communication or advice must have been given either in the course of the professional employment or with a view to professional employment.

However, the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications which are intended to be made public, intended to be communicated to others, intended for an unlawful purpose, received from third persons not acting in behalf or as agents of the client, or made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship. Hence, the lawyer is not barred from testifying against his client on matters disclosed by the client regarding his intention to commit a crime and which crime has already been committed at the time the physician testified. Public policy and public interest is superior over the clients right over the communication relayed to the lawyer.

2. Is the privilege on client-lawyer communication or any information relayed permanent that it can or may be claimed by clients executor or administrator? Explain. 10 pts.

Yes, the privilege on client-lawyer communication or any information relayed can last even after the lifetime of the client. In this sense, any communication relayed by the client to the lawyer may attain a permanent status and thus, the privilege may be validly claimed by the clients representative, including the clients executor or administrator.

3. Does the privilege cover law students under the Law Student Practice Rule? Explain. 10 pts.

Yes, the privilege covers law students under the Law Student Practice Rule, but with qualifications. The privilege does not apply to all law students. Section 3, Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court provides: The Rules safeguarding privileged communications between attorney and client shall apply to similar communications made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic. Under this Rule, a law student who has successfully completed his third year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law schools clinical legal education program. Thus, only law students who completed his third year in law school and who is enrolled in an apprenticeship or legal practice and is allowed to appear in court through the supervision of a lawyer-supervisor and who is doing the functions of a member of the IBP is covered by the privilege.

4. May a letter written by the wife addressed to her husband containing confidential information, and which letter was confiscated from the pocket of the husband during the latters arrest, be admissible in evidence against the husband who is being charged for a crime? Explain. 10 pts.

Yes, the letter is admissible in evidence against the husband.

People v. Carlos provided for the rules relative to privileged communication from one spouse to another: (a) For documents of communication coming into the possession of a third person and they were obtained from the addressee by voluntary delivery, they should still be privileged. (b) For documents of communication coming into the possession of a third person and they were obtained surreptitiously or otherwise without the addressees consent, the privilege should cease.

Hence, the letter ceased to be privilege because it was obtained by the arresting officers during a lawful arrest.

5. Distinguish spousal immunity from marital privilege. 10 pts.

Disqualification by reason of marriage or spousal immunity under Sec. 22, Rule 130 can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the action. It applies only if the marriage is existing at the time the testimony is offered. It constitutes an absolute prohibition for or against the spouse of the witness. Under this section, the married witness would not be allowed to take the stand at all because of the disqualification even if the testimony is, for or against the objecting spouse.

While;

Marital privilege can be claimed whether or not the other spouse is a party to the action. It can be claimed even after the marriage is dissolved. It applies only to confidential communications between the spouses. Under the marital privilege rule, the married person is put on the stand but the objection of privilege is raised when confidential marital communication is inquired into.

6. What matters are covered under the patient-physician privilege? What matters are outside the coverage of this privilege? 10 pts. Under the patient-physician privilege, the information which cannot be disclosed refers to:(a) any advice given to the client;(b) any treatment given to the client; and(c) any information acquired in attending such patient provided that the advice, treatment or information was made or acquired in a professional capacity and was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and (d) that the information sought to be disclosed would tend to blacken the reputation of the patient. Only disclosures which would have been made to the physician to enable him "safely and efficaciously to treat his patient" are covered by the privilege.

The patient-physician privilege does not apply to shield the commission of a crime or when the purpose is an unlawful one as to obtain narcotics or prohibited drugs in violation of law because there is no treatment involved. Also, the privilege does not apply where the purpose is to ask a physician to have ones appearance disguised by cosmetic or plastic surgery to escape apprehension. Any communication the purpose of which does not involve the treatment or prevention of any disease or injury is not covered by the patient-physician privilege. The mere fact of making a communication, as well as the date of a consultation and the number of consultations, are therefore not privileged from disclosure, so long as the subject communicated is not stated.

7. Explain the concept of executive privilege and its coverage. 10 pts.

Under the concept of executive privilege, certain types of information like military, diplomatic and other national security matters may be withheld from the public.

8. All foreign currency deposits are absolutely confidential and cannot be examined, inquired, or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, whether judicial, administrative or legislative, or any other private or public entity. Foreign currency deposits are also exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (Section 8, R.A. 6426)

How did the court justify its ruling in the following cases in relation to Section 8 and also under R.A. 6426? (10 pts each)

a. Salvacion v. Central Bank 343 PHIL 539

Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes futile the favorable judgment and award of damages that Salvacion and her parents fully deserve. It then proceeded to show that the economic basis for the enactment of RA No. 6426 is not anymore present; and even if it still exists, the questioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for being unreasonable and oppressive. The intention of the law may be good when enacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice and inequality such as the case.

The SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who argued that the Offshore Banking System and the Foreign Currency Deposit System were designed to draw deposits from foreign lenders and investors and, subsequently, to give the latter protection. However, the foreign currency deposit made by a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encouraged by PD Nos. 1034 and 1035 and given incentives and protection by said laws because such depositor stays only for a few days in the country and, therefore, will maintain his deposit in the bank only for a short time. Considering that Bartelli is just a tourist or a transient, he is not entitled to the protection of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246 against attachment, garnishment or other court processes.

Further, the SC said: In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

b. China Bank v. can, G.R. No. 140687, December 18, 2006

As the owner of the funds unlawfully taken and which are undisputably now deposited with China Bank, Jose Gotianuy has the right to inquire into the said deposits.A depositor, in cases of bank deposits, is one who pays money into the bank in the usual course of business, to be placed to his credit and subject to his check or the beneficiary of the funds held by the bank as trustee.

Furthermore, in the complaint of Jose Gotianuy, he alleged that his US dollar deposits with Citibank were illegally taken from him. On the other hand, China Bank employee Cristuta Labios testified that Mary Margaret Dee came to China Bank and deposited the money of Jose Gotianuy in Citibank US dollar checks to the dollar account of her sister Adrienne Chu. This fortifies our conclusion that an inquiry into the said deposit at China Bank is justified. At the very least, Jose Gotianuy as the owner of these funds is entitled to a hearing on the whereabouts of these funds.

c. Ejercito v. Estrada, G.R. No. 157294, November 20, 2006

These accounts are no longer protected by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law, there being two exceptions to the said law applicable in this case, namely: (1) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Exception (1) applies since the plunder case pending against former President Estrada is analogous to bribery or dereliction of duty, while exception (2) applies because the money deposited in petitioners bank accounts is said to form part of the subject matter of the same plunder case.

4