9.

Henry filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Laura on the ground of psychological
incapacity. Henry sought to testify on a confidential psychiatric evaluation report on his wife. Laura
objected to Henry’s testimony on the ground that it violates the physician-patient privilege. Is the
objection of Laura correct?

No. One of the requisites before the physician-patient privilege may be invoked is that the
person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics. Here, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery obstetrics.
Henry is simply Laura's husband who wishes to testify on a document executed by medical
practitioners. This does not fall within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a
circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony
of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report (Krohn v. CA, G.R. No. 108854, June
14, 1994).

10. Samantha sought to offer as evidence the testimony of Dr. Reyes to prove that Ivan is not the illegitimate
son of Marcus as the latter was sterile. Ivan objected to the admissibility of the said testimony arguing
that the same is covered by the physician-patient privilege because the testimony would blacken
reputation of Marcus. It was alleged that Marcus became sterile because he contracted syphilis.
Samantha argues that Marcus is long dead and, as such, the privilege may not be invoked.

3. Is the testimony of Dr. Reyes covered by the physician-patient privilege?

4. Does the fact that Marcus is long dead bar the application of the physician-patient privilege?

1. Yes. Marcus’s sterility arose when he contracted syphilis a fact which most assuredly
blackens his reputation. In fact, given that society holds virility at a premium, sterility alone,
without the attendant embarrassment of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease, would
be sufficient to blacken the reputation of any patient (Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No. 117740, Oct.
30, 1998).

2. No. The privilege of secrecy is not abolished or terminated because of death. The purpose of
the law would be thwarted and the policy intended to be promoted thereby would be
defeated, if death removed the seal of secrecy, from the communications and disclosures
which a patient should make to his physician. After one has gone to his grave, the living are
not permitted to impair his name and disgrace his memory by dragging to light
communications and disclosures made under the seal of the statute (Gonzales v. CA, G.R.
No. 117740, Oct. 30, 1998)

11. What do similar acts of evidence prohibit?

The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called “propensity evidence” which is evidence that
tends to show that what a person has done at one time is probative of the contention that he has done a
similar act at another time. Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet
allegations that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of
relevant issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues immediately before it. (Cruz v. Court
of Appeals, 293 SCRA 239).

12. Atty. Cruz and his eight-year-old daughter, Aliya, were shot and killed. A certain Mike surfaced and
executed an affidavit stating that a certain Joseph told him that he was ordered to kill Atty. Cruz by Ryan.
Andres during his detention executed an extrajudicial confession where he implicated Ryan to the crime.
However, in a letter, Mike disowned the contents of his affidavit and narrated how he had been tortured

Law on Evidence: MCQ’s and Essay Q’s with Suggested Answers

Compiled by Benj Hernandez Jr. (Remedial Law Review – Evidence Group - PCU-Law Batch 2013) Page 18