Rea Jane B.

Malcampo
Evidence

December 16, 2014

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.
1

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.
2

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
3

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.