Krohn vs CA
Husband
 Facts
o In this case, Mr. Edgar Krohn presented in evidence a confidential
psychiatric evaluation that his wife, petitioner Paz Krohn, is
psychologically incapacitated. This was for annulment proceedings
which Edgar initiated.
o Mrs. Paz Krohn is invoking the rule on privileged communications
between physician and patient. Paz seeks to enjoin Edgar from
disclosing the contents of the report.
 Trial court and appellate court refused her side  certiorari
to the Supreme Court
 Background Facts
o Edgar and Paz were married in St. Vincent Church, Manila. They had
three kids – Edgar, Karl, and Alexandra. Still! Their relationship
became a stormy one  In 1971, 7 years after their wedding, Paz
underwent psychological incapacity testing to ease the marital strain.
The effort, however, proved futile! They finally separated in 1973 (in
fact)
 Paz left for and lived in Spain
o Edgar secured a copy of the report (sgd. by Drs. Banaag and Reyes)
 Using it, he was able to nullify his church marriage with Paz
on the ground of “incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia”
due to lack of due discretion existent at the time of the
wedding and thereafter
 Facts
o Edgar was able to acquire a court order dissolving the conjugal
partnership. He then filed a petition for annulment before the trial
court. He cited the psych report.
 Answer: “either unfounded or irrelevant”
o Hearing: Edgar took the witness stand and tried to testify on the
contents of the report
 OBJECTION: violated rule on privileged comms between
physician and patient. Paz also filed a manifestation
expressing her continuing objection to any evidence that
would thwart that privileged rule. (motion to disallow)
 Motion to disallow contested by Edgar
o Trial court admitted the report as evidence. It said that the very issue
in the case is w/n psych incap. Also – when the report was referred
to in the complaint, the respondent did not object thereto on the
ground of confidentiality (irrelevance kasi sinabi) hence it is VERY
material.
 MoRe denied. CA certiorari dismissed MoRE to CA denied
 Issues
o (1) W/N admission into evidence should be enjoined?
 Paz: Sec 24(c) of Rule 130 prohibits physicians from
testifying xxx with more reason should third-persons (sa
report) be prohibited from testifying. Purpose of prohibition
is to facilitate and make safe full disclosure by a patient
(walang takot)
 Paz: will set very bad precedent.
 Edgar: Rule is explicit – only applies to physicians!
may testify against wife in a civil case filed by one against
the other.
 Edgar: privileged comms may be waived by the person
entitled thereto, which Paz did when she gave unconditional
consent to the use of the psych eval when it was presented
to the Tribunal Metropolitan Matrimoniale (church marriage)
 Edgar: failed to contest based on privileged character, sabi
lang irrelevant.
o Discussion
 Treatise presented by Paz (on why it is privileged) are
correct – the purpose is to inspire confidence and to ensure
full disclosure to a physician. This prevents phys from
making public information that will result in humiliation,
embarrassment, or disgrace to the patient. Creates a “zone
of privacy”
 HOWEVER, the discourse on treaty is misplaced – Lim vs.
CA lays down the requisites for privilege character
 (a) claimed in a civil case
 (b) person against whom it is claimed is one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery,
or obstetrics
 (c) person against acquired info while attending to
the patient in a professional capacity
 (d) info necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity
 (e) info was confidential and, if disclosed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient.
o Held
 No privileged character – Edgar Kohn is not a person
authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics. He
is simply the patient’s husband who wishes to testify on a
document executed by a physician
 Not a circumvention of the rule – testimony of a normie does
not equate to a testimony of an expert doctor. Not the same
force and effect!
 Counsel for petitioner made a mistake
 Argued on privileged, but it wasn’t privileged. He
argued it so much he forgot to raise the defense
that it was hearsay. Hence, he can no longer claim
the same since that defense is deemed waived.
o Lastly
 We thus enjoin the trial judge and the parties' respective
counsel to act with deliberate speed in resolving the main
action, and avoid any and all stratagems that may further
delay this case.
 Here is no point in unreasonably delaying the resolution of
the petition and prolonging the agony of the wedded couple
who after coming out from a storm still have the right to a
renewed blissful life either alone or in the company of each
other.
People vs. De Leon
 Facts
o Accused – appellant de Leon seek the reversal of the decision of the
RTC of Bulacan finding him and Manayao guilty of murder,
sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to
indemnify the heirs – 50k, the wife 280k. Manayao did not appeal.
o Information filed in 1992.
 Around 10 AM, in Bulacan, the accused armed with armalite
rifles and pistols, conspiring with one another, with the aid
of armed men and employing means to weaken the defense
of persons as to afford impunity, and with evident pre-
meditation, and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously ambush, attack, and shoot from
behind Marcelino Santiago, who was hit in the head while
driving his jeep. Insta-death.
o Prosec had three witnesses (two eyes)
 Mariano – farmer
 Mariano was heading the opposite direction as
Marcelino’s jeep. After passing Marcelino, he
heard six gun shots. When he turned around he
saw de Leon holding an armalite at waist-level,
and Manayao holding a pistol at shoulder-level.
 He saw smoke come out of the gun barrels
 After the shooting the accused, joined by a John
Doe, leisurely walked towards an alley in front of
Mariano. At this point Mariano was able to identify
them with certainty as they were town-mates (only
identified the victims at the funeral – he didn’t say
a word the day of the event)
 Chavez – employee of victim
 Was on the street in front of the bus terminal, some
6 meters behind Marcelino (was gonna chit-chat
sana). When the suspects fired their guns,
 Bartolome – policeman, not an eyewitness -