Krohn vs CA
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!
Husband 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 patients 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 wasnt
privileged. He argued it so much he forgot
to raise the defense that it was hearsay.
 Hence, he can no longer claim the same Was on the street in front of the bus
since that defense is deemed waived. terminal, some 6 meters behind Marcelino
o Lastly (was gonna chit-chat sana). When the
We thus enjoin the trial judge and the parties' suspects fired their guns,
respective counsel to act with deliberate speed in Bartolome policeman, not an eyewitness -
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 Marcelinos 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 didnt say a
word the day of the event)
Chavez employee of victim