b. Disqualification of Witnesses

In case person is convicted of a crime<br>

General rule: Not disqualified

The fact that a witness has been convicted of felony is a circumstance to be taken into consideration as affecting his character and credibility [Enrile, et al. v. Roberto, et al. G.R. No. L-42309 (1935)]

Exception: Otherwise provided by law, e.g. under Art. 821 of the Civil Code, a person convicted of any of the following crimes cannot be a witness to a will:

• Falsification of documents;
• Perjury; or
• False testimony

EFFECT OF RELATIONSHIP<br>

General rule: Mere relationship does not impair credibility [People v. De Guzman, G.R. 130809 (2000)]

Exception:

To warrant rejection, it must be clearly shown that:

• Testimony was inherently improbable or defective
• Improper/evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate falsely [People v. Daen Jr., G.R. No. 112015 (1995)]

Note: Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity (previously Sec. 21, Rule 130) and disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party aka Dead Man’s Statute (previously Sec. 23, Rule 130) have been deleted in the 2019 Revisions.

Disqualification by Reason of Marriage

Also known as Marital Disqualification Rule [Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)] or Spousal Immunity

Exceptions:

• Those convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony cannot be witnesses to a will. (Civil Code, Art. 821)
• An accused convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, whenever made a coaccused in any criminal case, cannot be discharged to become a witness for the Government. (Rule 119, Sec. 17)

Duration of the Privilege:

The privilege lasts only during marriage.

Q: Should the phrase "in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other" be restricted to crimes committed by one spouse against the other, such as physical injuries, bigamy, adultery or concubinage, or should it be given a latitudinarian interpretation as referring to any offense causing marital discord?

A: When an offense directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed by one against the other.

Using the criterion thus judiciously enunciated in the Cargill case, it can be concluded that in the law of evidence the rape perpetrated by the father against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife (the victim's mother). (Ordoño v. Daquigan, G.R. No. L-39012, 1975) This ruling has been codified under Rule 130, Sec. 23.

Testimony Where Spouse is Accused with Others

The disqualification is between husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused. The wife may proceed and testify in the murder case against the brothers who were jointly tried with her husband, but the testimony cannot be used against the husband through the guise of taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the murder case without violating the rule. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. (People v. Quidato, G.R. No. 117401, 1998)

Marital Disqualification versus Marital Privileged Communication

(Riano, p. 235)

The Privilege Does Not Apply:

• When the case is a criminal case.
• When the testimony refers to information regarding a patient which the physician acquired either before the relation of physician and patient began or after its termination.
• When there is waiver.
• If the physician acted for purposes other than to prescribe for the patient.
• When the information was not necessary for the proper treatment of the patient.
• Where an action for damages is brought by the patient against his physician.
• When the physician is presented as an expert witness and the facts testified to are merely hypothetical. (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 1992)
• When the information was intended to be public, such as results of physical and mental examinations ordered by the court and results of autopsies. (See Rule 28, Sec. 4)

Where the person against whom the privilege is claimed is the patient’s husband who testifies on a document executed by medical practitioners, his testimony does not have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report. Plainly, this does not fall within the prohibition. (Krohn vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108854, 1994)

BUT NOTE THIS 2019 AMENDMENT: The communication shall remain 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. (Rule 130, Sec. 24, last paragraph)