Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

1. Londres v.

CA Laus
Plaintiff is the estate, DMS not applicable
2. Razon v. IAC G.R. No. 74306, March 16, 1995 Chan
Estate of Chuidian is one who claims against the estate of Irazon, the latters lips are not sealed
3. Tongco v. Liangson 50 P 698, Justice Malcolm Paul
DMS does not apply to cadastral proceedings, only in ordinary civil proceedings
Marital Privilege
4. People v. Carlos 47 P 626 March 17, 1925 David
Where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the hands of a third party, the
privilege is thereby extinguished and the communication becomes admissible.
5. Barton v. Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Company 46 P 938 March 22, 1934 Aguas
Communications between attorney and client which came to the hands of the adverse party is not
covered by the privilege.
6. Orient Insurance Co. v. Revilla and Teal Motor Co. 54 P 919 Lingat
The presentation in evidence of a part of a letter containing communications between the lawyer and his
client amounts to waiver of the privilege which will permit the other party to examine the entire letter;
contract for fees not privileged.
7. US Case: Hickman v. Taylor 329 US 495, January 13, 1947 Espino
Information obtained from witnesses in anticipation of litigation are not covered by the privilege.
8. US Case: Upjohn Co. v. US 449 US 383, January 13, 1981 Maniquis
Communications by employees to counsel are covered by the attorney-client privilege.
9. People vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 115439-41, July 16, 1997 Tiatco
Communications between attorney and client having to do with the client's contemplated criminal acts, or
in aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the privilege.
10. Uy Chico v. Union Life Insurance Society 29 P 163, Jan. 6, 1915 Banting
Communications made by a client to his attorney for the purpose of being communicated to others are
not privileged.
11. Regala vs. SB, G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1996 Santos
Disclosure of the identity of clients in this case is a violation of the privilege because it would lead to
establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of the case and would provide the necessary
link for the prosecution to build its case, where none otherwise exists.
12. Disini v. Sandiganbayan Bersamin Chan
In house counsel
13. Krohn v. CA G.R. No. 108854. June 14, 1994 Sabado
Where the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery, or obstetrics, (the husband in this case) the privilege will not apply.
14. Lim v. CA 214 S 273 Sept. 25, 1992 Luzung
The privilege is not violated by permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in response to a
strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental condition of a patient whom he has
attended professionally.
Public Officer
15. US Case: US v. Nixon 418 US 683 July 24, 1974 Tinio
A generalized claim of public interest is not within the ambit of the privilege.
16. Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board G.R. No. L-70054, July 8, 1986 Suarez
Where public interest has not been established, the documents are not covered by the privilege.
Other Privileged Communication
17. People v. Ong 432 SCRA 470 Lingat

Informers privilege: Where the disclosure of an informer's identity, or the contents of his communication,
is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the
privilege must give way.
18. US Case: New York Times Co. and Farber v. Jascalevich, 439 US 1331, August 4, 1978 Aguas
Farbers investigation as reporter; right of reporter not to disclose vis--vis right of accused to present a
witness; the latter prevails
Admissions and Confessions
Admissions by third-party
19. People vs. Alegre G.R. No. L-30423 November 7, 1979, 84 S 105 Tiatco
The silence of an accused under custody cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation
in the commission of the crime because of his right against self-incrimination.
20. People v. Raquel G.R. No. 119005, December 2, 1996 Maniquis
The extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against the latter,
unless these are repeated in open court.
Admission by conspirator
21. People vs. Cabrera G.R. No. L-37398. June 28, 1974 David
A statement not made during the existence of the alleged conspiracy, such as when the co-conspirator
was already in the hands of the authorities, is not admissible in evidence.
22. People v. Yatco G.R. No. L-9181, November 28, 1955 Espino
Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if the confession may not be competent as
against co-accused, being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the
conspiracy being established by other evidence, the confession is, nevertheless, admissible as evidence
of the declarant's own guilt.
23. People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, G.R. No. L-19590, April 25, 1968 Villarosa
Conspiracy was not proved by independent evidence
24. People v. Serrano 105 P 531 Laus
The rule on admission by conspirator applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration, but not to testimony
given on the stand at the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.