Title

Alvarez vs. Ramirez

Case
G.R. No. 143439
Ponente
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J
Decision Date
Oct 14, 2005
In the case of Alvarez v. Ramirez, the Court allows Esperanza Alvarez to testify
against her husband, Maximo Alvarez, in a criminal case of arson, as the offense
directly impairs their marital relationship and the State has an interest in
presenting the truth before the courts.
ParagraphOutline

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143439)

Facts:
The case of Alvarez v. Ramirez involves a criminal case of arson filed against Maximo
Alvarez. The case originated from Criminal Case No. 19933-MN for arson pending
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Malabon City. Maximo Alvarez is the
husband of Esperanza Alvarez, who is the sister of the complaining witness, Susan
Ramirez. During the trial, Esperanza Alvarez was called as the first witness against
Maximo Alvarez. She testified that she saw her husband pouring gasoline on the house
of Susan Ramirez and setting it on fire. Maximo Alvarez showed "uncontrolled
emotions" during her testimony, prompting the trial judge to suspend the proceedings.
Maximo Alvarez then filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him
based on the marital disqualification rule under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The trial court issued an order disqualifying Esperanza Alvarez from further testifying
and deleting her testimony from the records. The prosecution filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied. Susan Ramirez, the complaining witness, then filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the trial court's
orders.

Issue:
The main issue in the case is whether Esperanza Alvarez can testify against her husband,
Maximo Alvarez, in the criminal case of arson.

Ruling:
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision nullifying and setting aside the trial court's
orders. The Court applied Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, which
provides that during their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a criminal case for
a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants. The Court held that the offense of arson directly impairs the conjugal
relation between Maximo Alvarez and Esperanza Alvarez. The act of setting fire to the
house of Susan Ramirez, knowing that his wife was there, eradicates trust, confidence,
respect, and love, which are essential aspects of marital life. The Court emphasized that
the relationship between Maximo Alvarez and Esperanza Alvarez was already strained
prior to the commission of the offense, and the preservation of their marriage is no
longer an interest the State aims to protect. The Court also recognized the State's
interest in presenting the truth before the courts, so the guilty may be punished and the
innocent exonerated. Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals,
ordering the trial court to allow Esperanza Alvarez to testify against Maximo Alvarez in
the criminal case.

Ratio:
The Court's ratio is that the offense of arson directly impairs the conjugal relation
between Maximo Alvarez and Esperanza Alvarez. The act of setting fire to the house of
Susan Ramirez, knowing that his wife was there, eradicates trust, confidence, respect,
and love, which are essential aspects of marital life. The Court emphasized that the
relationship between Maximo Alvarez and Esperanza Alvarez was already strained prior
to the commission of the offense, and the preservation of their marriage is no longer an
interest the State aims to protect. The Court also recognized the State's interest in
presenting the truth before the courts, so the guilty may be punished and the innocent
exonerated. Therefore, the Court allowed Esperanza Alvarez to testify against Maximo
Alvarez in the criminal case, based on the exception to the marital disqualification rule.

Title
Chan vs. Chan
Case
G.R. No. 179786
Ponente
ABAD, J
Decision Date
Jul 24, 2013
In the case of Chan v. Chan, the court denies a petitioner's request for the
production of her husband's hospital records, citing physician-patient privilege,
in a dispute over the nullity of their marriage and custody of their children.
ParagraphOutline

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179786)

Facts:
The case of Chan v. Chan involves a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage
filed by the petitioner, Josielene Lara Chan, against the respondent, Johnny Chan.
Josielene also sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains and the
award of custody of their children. She alleged that Johnny failed to care for and support
their family and that a psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to his
excessive use of prohibited drugs. Josielene convinced Johnny to undergo hospital
confinement for detoxification and rehabilitation. However, Johnny resisted the action,
claiming that Josielene failed in her wifely duties. During the pre-trial conference,
Josielene requested the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for the production of
Johnny's hospital records from his confinement.

Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in ruling that the
trial court correctly denied the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for Johnny's
hospital records.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the CA did not err in upholding the trial court's decision
to deny the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for Johnny's hospital records.

Ratio:
The Court held that Josielene's request for a subpoena duces tecum was premature. The
offer of evidence is made during the trial, and at that point, the court can determine the
admissibility of the evidence. The Court also emphasized that hospital records are
privileged and cannot be disclosed during the discovery procedure. The physician-
patient privilege protects the confidentiality of medical records and ensures that
patients can freely disclose their medical conditions to their doctors without fear of
disclosure to third parties. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied Josielene's motion
for a subpoena duces tecum. The Court affirmed the decision of the CA and denied
Josielene's petition.

Title
Constantino vs. Aransazo, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 9701
Ponente
HERNANDO, J
Decision Date
Feb 10, 2021
Atty. Aransazo is suspended from the practice of law for one year after violating
the rule on privileged communication and representing conflicting interests in a
case involving a disputed Deed of Assignment.
ParagraphOutline

Case Digest (A.C. No. 9701)

Facts:
This case involves a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Atty. Rogelio S. Constantino
against Atty. Nemesio A. Aransazo, Jr. The complaint alleges that Atty. Aransazo
violated Canons 17 and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as
Rule 138, Sections 20 (e) and 27 of the Rules of Court. The alleged violation pertains to
the disclosure of confidential information acquired during their lawyer-client
relationship.

The events leading to the complaint are as follows: Atty. Constantino engaged the
services of Atty. Aransazo as his counsel in a civil case involving a disputed Deed of
Assignment. The case centered around a house and lot registered in the name of Hope
Claire Aldaba, who had obtained a loan from Eduardo Tongco. As security for the loan,
Aldaba executed a Real Estate Mortgage and a Promissory Note and Irrevocable Special
Power of Attorney in favor of Tongco. When Aldaba failed to repay the loan, Tongco
executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of Atty. Constantino and Atty. Aransazo.
Subsequently, Attys. Constantino and Aransazo filed for extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings. However, Aldaba filed a motion to admit an amended complaint, claiming
that the Deed of Assignment was without consideration.

Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether Atty. Aransazo violated the rule on privileged
communication between attorney and client and represented conflicting interests.

Ruling:
The court ruled that Atty. Aransazo indeed violated the rule on privileged
communication and represented conflicting interests. The court recognized the
existence of an attorney-client relationship between Atty. Constantino and Atty.
Aransazo. As such, Atty. Aransazo had a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the
information disclosed to him by Atty. Constantino. However, by executing a sworn
statement that divulged confidential information, Atty. Aransazo breached his
obligation to preserve the confidence reposed in him and to safeguard his client's
secrets. Additionally, Atty. Aransazo represented conflicting interests by advocating for
the validity and due execution of the Deed of Assignment in one case, while disputing its
validity in another case. Consequently, the court suspended Atty. Aransazo from the
practice of law for a period of one year.

Ratio:
The court's decision was based on the principle that an attorney-client relationship
imposes a duty on the lawyer to maintain the confidentiality of information disclosed by
the client. In this case, Atty. Aransazo violated the rule on privileged communication by
executing a sworn statement that revealed confidential information. The court
emphasized that representing conflicting interests is also a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the trust and confidence of
the client, and any breach of this duty warrants disciplinary action.

People of the Philippines

vs
. Honorable Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41,
July
16, 1997
FACTS:
The case involves a prominent politician in Mindanao, respondent Ceferino Paredes,
Jr., who was formerly the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, then Governor, and
Congressman. During his stint, Paredes applied for and was granted a free patent over a
vast tract of land. However, it was cancelled because apparently, it has already been
designated and reserved as a school site. The court found that Paredes had obtained title
thereto through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application, and somebody came
forward and filed a case of perjury against him. However, the same was dismissed on the
ground of prescription. Then again, another case was filed against him for violation of RA
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for using his former position as Provincial
Attorney to influence and induce the Bureau of Lands officials to favorably act on his
application for patent. In all these cases, Paredes was represented by respondent Atty.
Sansaet, a practicing attorney.
Paredes, as defense, contends that he has already been charged under the same set of facts
and the same evidence where such complaint (perjury case where he was already arraigned)
has already been dismissed. Hence, double jeopardy has already attached. In support
hereof, Paredes presented court records and transcripts as proof of his arraignment in the
perjury case.
However, the documents were found to be falsified, in conspiracy with Paredes’ counsel and
the clerk of court where the perjury case was filed. One Teofilo Gelacio claims that no notice
of arraignment was ever received by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. Hence, another case
was filed for falsification of judicial records. It was then that respondent Sansaet offered to
testify as a state witness against his client Paredes, claiming that the latter contrived and
induced him to have the graft case dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by having
him and co-respondent prepare and falsify the subject documents.
But the Sandiganbayan denied the motion on the ground of attorney-client privilege since
the lawyer could not testify against his own client. In view of such relationship, confidential
matters must have been disclosed by Paredes, as client, to accused Sansaet, as his lawyer,
in his professional capacity, and therefore privileged.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of respondent Sansaet, as proposed state witness, is
barred by attorney-client privilege.

HELD:
No. There is no privileged communication rule to talk about. The privilege applies
only if the information was relayed by the client to the lawyer respecting a past crime. The
reckoning point is when the communication was given, not when the lawyer was made to
testify.
The attorney-client privilege cannot apply in these cases as the facts thereof and the
actuations of both respondents therein constitute an exception to the rule.
It may be correctly assumed that there was a confidential communication made by Paredes
to Sansaet in connection with the criminal cases since the latter served as his counsel
therein. The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications made by the client
to his attorney but extends as well to information communicated by other means. IOW,
including physical acts. The acts and words of the parties, therefore, during the period when
the documents were being falsified were necessarily confidential since Paredes would not
have invited Sansaet to his house and allowed him to witness the same except under
conditions of secrecy and confidence.
However, the announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the
confidences which his attorney is bound to respect. It is true that
by now
, insofar as the
falsifications are concerned, those crimes were necessarily committed in the past. But for
the privilege to apply, the period to be considered is the date when the privileged
communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime
committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future.
IOW, if the client seeks his lawyer’s advice with respect to a crime which he has already
committed, he is given the protection of a virtual confessional seal which the privilege
declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the client’s consent. The same privileged
confidentiality, however, does not attach with regard to a crime a client intends to commit
thereafter or in the future and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer’s advice.
Here, the testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are the
communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of Paredes at the
time he and Honrada were about to falsify the documents.
Clearly, therefore, the
confidential communications thus made by Paredes to Sansaet were for purposes of and in
reference to the crime of falsification which
had not yet been committed
in the past by
Paredes but which he, in confederacy with his present co-respondents, later
committed.
Having been made for purposes of a
future
offense, those communications are
outside the pale of the attorney-client privilege.
It is well settled that communication between a lawyer and his client, to be privileged, must
be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end.
The existence of an unlawful
purpose prevents the privilege from attaching. In fact, the prosecution of the honorable
relation of attorney and client will not be permitted under the guise of privilege, and every
communication made to an attorney by a client for a criminal purpose is a conspiracy or
attempt at a conspiracy which is not only lawful to divulge, but which the attorney under
certain circumstances may be bound to disclose at once in the interest of justice.
To prevent a conniving counsel from revealing the genesis of a crime which was later
committed pursuant to a conspiracy, because of the objection thereto of his conspiring
client, would be one of the worst travesties in the rules of evidence and practice in the noble
profession of law

Title
People vs. Esugon y Avila
Case
G.R. No. 195244
Ponente
BERSAMIN, J
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2015
A 5-year-old witness's testimony is deemed credible and sufficient to convict
Alvin Esugon for the crime of robbery with homicide, highlighting that age is not
a necessary qualification to be a witness.
ParagraphOutline

Case Digest (G.R. No. 195244)

Facts:
The case involves the conviction of Alvin Esugon for the crime of robbery with homicide.
The incident occurred when the appellant stabbed to death the mother of a 5-year-old
witness named Carl. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the appellant guilty and
sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
conviction but modified the amount of actual damages awarded.

Issue:
The main issue raised in this case is whether the testimony of the 5-year-old witness,
Carl, is credible and sufficient to convict the appellant.

Ruling:
The court ruled that Carl's testimony is credible and sufficient to convict the appellant.
The court emphasized that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness, and the
burden of substantiating the challenge to the child's competency lies with the party
challenging it. The court also highlighted that age is not a necessary qualification to be a
witness. The court further explained that the determination of a witness's credibility is
within the province of the trial court, and its findings are entitled to great respect on
appeal. In this case, both the trial court and the CA found Carl's testimony credible and
reliable. The court also noted that the inconsistencies in Carl's testimony were minor
and did not affect the positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator.

Ratio:
The court based its decision on the principle that every child is presumed qualified to be
a witness. It emphasized that age is not a necessary qualification to be a witness and that
the determination of a witness's credibility is within the province of the trial court. The
court also highlighted that the burden of challenging a child's competency lies with the
party challenging it. In this case, the trial court and the CA found Carl's testimony
credible and reliable, and the minor inconsistencies in his testimony did not affect the
positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator.

Ruling on the Robbery Element

The court also addressed the appellant's argument that the robbery element was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the appellant's use of a long-
bladed weapon constituted violence or intimidation against a person, qualifying the
offense as robbery instead of theft. The court further explained that the appellant's
original intent was to commit robbery, and the homicide was committed in the course or
on the occasion of the robbery. Therefore, the appellant was guilty of robbery with
homicide.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the crime of robbery
with homicide. The court increased the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and
awarded exemplary damages. The appellant was also ordered to pay interest on the
monetary awards for damages.

Title
Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations
Case
G.R. No. 180643
Ponente
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J
Decision Date
Mar 25, 2008
 Former government official Romulo L. Neri challenges the Senate's show cause
letter and contempt order in relation to the National Broadband Network (NBN)
Project investigation, invoking executive privilege, leading to a Supreme Court
ruling in his favor and emphasizing the importance of executive privilege, respect
between branches of government, and the judicious exercise of the power of
contempt.
ParagraphOutline

Case Digest (G.R. No. 180643)

Facts:
The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Romulo L. Neri against the Senate
Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Trade and
Commerce, and National Defense and Security. Neri challenges the show cause letter
and contempt order issued by the Senate Committees in relation to the National
Broadband Network (NBN) Project investigation. He argues that the Senate Committees
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order and invokes
executive privilege. The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)
entered into a contract with Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the
NBN Project. Resolutions were introduced in the Senate to investigate the approval of
the contract and the role played by officials involved. Neri, as the former Director
General of NEDA, was summoned to testify before the Senate Committees. He attended
one hearing and disclosed that he was offered a bribe but refused to answer certain
questions invoking executive privilege. The Committees issued a subpoena ad
testificandum to Neri, but he did not appear. The Executive Secretary requested the
Committees to dispense with Neri's testimony on the ground of executive privilege. The
Committees issued a show cause letter to Neri, and he replied invoking executive
privilege. The Committees then issued a contempt order citing Neri in contempt and
ordering his arrest and detention. Neri filed a motion for reconsideration and a
supplemental petition for certiorari seeking to restrain the implementation of the
contempt order.

Issue:
The main issue in the case is whether the communications elicited by the three
questions raised by the Senate Committees are covered by executive privilege.

Ruling:
The Court ruled that the communications are indeed covered by executive privilege. It
held that there is a recognized claim of executive privilege despite the revocation of
Executive Order No. 464. The Court also found that the claim of executive privilege was
properly invoked by the President through the Executive Secretary's letter. The Court
further ruled that the Senate Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the contempt order. It found that the Committees did not comply with the requirement
to provide advance notice of the questions to Neri and that they violated the Senate's
own rules of procedure. The Court also noted that the contempt order was arbitrary and
precipitate, and that the Committees did not first rule on the claim of executive privilege
before issuing the order.

Ratio:
The Court emphasized the importance of executive privilege, respect between branches
of government, and the judicious exercise of the power of contempt. The Court
recognized that executive privilege is a constitutional principle that allows the President
and high-level executive officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and
the public. The Court clarified that executive privilege can be invoked to protect the
confidentiality and effectiveness of Presidential decision-making. However, the Court
also emphasized that executive privilege is not absolute and must be balanced against
other constitutionally recognized interests, such as the right to information and the
power of legislative inquiry. In this case, the Court found that the Senate Committees
did not properly balance these interests and committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the contempt order. The Court emphasized the need for the Senate Committees
to comply with their own rules of procedure and to provide advance notice of questions
to witnesses. The Court also highlighted the importance of negotiations and
accommodations between the executive and legislative branches in resolving disputes
involving executive privilege.