You are on page 1of 3

TITLE: People vs.

Rapeza
CITATION: 520 SCRA 596, G.R. No. 169431 April 4, 2007
TOPIC: Confessions

FACTS:
X was charged with murder. X was then held in the police station overnight before he was taken to the
house of Atty. R. It was alleged that an interpreter was provided because X was not well versed in
Tagalog being a native of Samar. As he is illiterate, he affixed only his thumbmark on the statement
above his printed name. The interpreter, and Atty. R, as the assisting counsel, also signed the statement.
Atty. R signed again as the notary public who notarized the statement. The interpreter was not
presented as a witness during trial. Is the confession admissible in evidence?

ANSWER:
No.

An extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must conform to the following requisites: 1) the confession
must be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent
counsel, preferably of the confessant’s choice; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession
must be in writing.

In the case at bar, X was illiterate and not well-versed in Tagalog but there was no evidence that there
was in fact an interpreter because none was presented during trial. Further, although Atty. R signed the
confession as X’s counsel and he himself notarized the statement, there is no evidence on how he
assisted X starting from the time he was taken to the police station.

Thus, the confession is inadmissible.


TITLE: People vs. Macapal, Jr.
CITATION: 463 SCRA 387, G.R. No. 155335 July 14, 2005
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Mental Incapacity or Immaturity

FACTS:
An information for rape was filed against X for raping Y, 23-year old illiterate who appears to be
mentally retarded. A psychiatrist opined that while the mental capacity of Y is comparable to that of a
child between 9 to 12 years old, she could testify in court but under closed door and leading questions
should be avoided as retarded people may be suggestible and wish to please others. X argued that Y, a
mental retardate, is incompetent to establish his identity for, so he contends, it is not easy to ascertain
the identity of a rapist when the victim is deprived of reason. Can a mental retardate be allowed to
testify in court?

ANSWER:
Yes.

Jurisprudence provides that mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A mentally retarded
may be a credible witness. The acceptance of his or her testimony depends on the quality of his or her
perceptions and the manner he or she can make them known to the court.
As long as a witness’ testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or
contradictions in its material points, and his or her demeanor is consistent with one who has been
victimized to thus bolster credibility with the verity born out of human nature and experience, credibility
can be accorded to him or her.
TITLE: Krohn vs. Court of Appeals
CITATION: 233 SCRA 146, G.R. No. 108854 June 14, 1994
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Physician-Patient Privilege

FACTS:
H filed an annulment case against W on the ground of psychological incapacity. During trial, a
confidential psychiatric evaluation report is being presented in evidence. The witness testifying on the
report is H and not the physician who prepared the report. The subject of the evaluation report, W,
invoking the rule on privileged communication between physician and patient, seeks to enjoin H from
disclosing the contents of the report. Is W correct?

ANSWER:
No.

One of the requisites in order that the privilege may be successfully invoked is: x x x (b) the person
against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics x
x x.

In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient’s husband who wishes to testify on a
document executed by medical practitioners.

You might also like