Q1: In June 1998, Fafa told Fifi that he killed Kiki. After a year, Fafa married Fifi.
Upon the offer of testimony of Fifi for the alleged
killing of Kiki,
(i) Can Fafa validly make an objection?
(ii) Suppose the testimony was offered at the time the marriage between Fafa and Fifi was already terminated, can Fafa still
validly object, this time on the ground of marital privilege rule under Sec. 24?
(iii) Suppose the information received by Fifi was communicated by Fafa during their marriage, can Fafa validly object to the
testimony of Fifi if it was offered after the dissolution of their marriage on the ground of marital disqualification rule under
Sec. 22?
Q2: On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa against Petronilo in the amount of 3 million pesos. Petronilo brought his complaint
to the National Bureau of Investigation, which found that Edgardo had visited his lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and
the second August 16, 2008; and that both visits concerned the swindling of Edgardo.
During the trial, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to Edgardo’s lawyer for him to testify the conversations during their first
and second meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of privileged communication? Explain fully.
Q1: In June 1998, Fafa told Fifi that he killed Kiki. After a year, Fafa married Fifi. Upon the offer of testimony of Fifi for the alleged
killing of Kiki,
(i) Can Fafa validly make an objection?
(ii) Suppose the testimony was offered at the time the marriage between Fafa and Fifi was already terminated, can Fafa still
validly object, this time on the ground of marital privilege rule under Sec. 24?
(iii) Suppose the information received by Fifi was communicated by Fafa during their marriage, can Fafa validly object to the
testimony of Fifi if it was offered after the dissolution of their marriage on the ground of marital disqualification rule under
Sec. 22?
Q2: On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa against Petronilo in the amount of 3 million pesos. Petronilo brought his complaint
to the National Bureau of Investigation, which found that Edgardo had visited his lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and
the second August 16, 2008; and that both visits concerned the swindling of Edgardo.
During the trial, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to Edgardo’s lawyer for him to testify the conversations during their first
and second meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of privileged communication? Explain fully.
Q1: In June 1998, Fafa told Fifi that he killed Kiki. After a year, Fafa married Fifi. Upon the offer of testimony of Fifi for the alleged
killing of Kiki,
(i) Can Fafa validly make an objection?
(ii) Suppose the testimony was offered at the time the marriage between Fafa and Fifi was already terminated, can Fafa still
validly object, this time on the ground of marital privilege rule under Sec. 24?
(iii) Suppose the information received by Fifi was communicated by Fafa during their marriage, can Fafa validly object to the
testimony of Fifi if it was offered after the dissolution of their marriage on the ground of marital disqualification rule under
Sec. 22?
Q2: On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa against Petronilo in the amount of 3 million pesos. Petronilo brought his complaint
to the National Bureau of Investigation, which found that Edgardo had visited his lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and
the second August 16, 2008; and that both visits concerned the swindling of Edgardo.
During the trial, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to Edgardo’s lawyer for him to testify the conversations during their first
and second meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of privileged communication? Explain fully.
Q1: In June 1998, Fafa told Fifi that he killed Kiki. After a year, Fafa married Fifi. Upon the offer of testimony of Fifi for the alleged
killing of Kiki,
(i) Can Fafa validly make an objection?
(ii) Suppose the testimony was offered at the time the marriage between Fafa and Fifi was already terminated, can Fafa still
validly object, this time on the ground of marital privilege rule under Sec. 24?
(iii) Suppose the information received by Fifi was communicated by Fafa during their marriage, can Fafa validly object to the
testimony of Fifi if it was offered after the dissolution of their marriage on the ground of marital disqualification rule under
Sec. 22?
Q2: On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa against Petronilo in the amount of 3 million pesos. Petronilo brought his complaint
to the National Bureau of Investigation, which found that Edgardo had visited his lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and
the second August 16, 2008; and that both visits concerned the swindling of Edgardo.
During the trial, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to Edgardo’s lawyer for him to testify the conversations during their first
and second meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of privileged communication? Explain fully.
