Evidence No.

10

Lim v. CA

This involve an annulment of marriage.
The wife was not cured.

Husband filed an annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Q: Who was presented a witness?
A: Acampado, the physician or psychiatrist who was treating the wife for
schizophrenia.
An expert witness with respect to the illness.

Q: what was the objection?
A: there was physician-patient privilege communication.

Ruling: such privilege is not applicable because the questions being ask are
more likely hypothetical and general only pertaining to the metal problem.
And questions asked do not refer to the patient.

Q; was the testimony of the physician relevant?
A: yes as to the mental disorder because it was of the purpose of proving the
schizophrenia.

This case is so stupid.

Q: If the lawyer for the husband here, and you want to prove psychological
incapacity which is schizophrenia and you present somebody to speak about
hypothetical facts, and you are the counsel of adverse party, what would be
your objection?
-it is irrelevant!

Because cmon what would be the relation of these hypothetical question and
hypothetical answers to the issue of the case which is the ilness.

A: you oppose or you just let it go. Because theres nothing really in substance
with respect to the testimony ofthe physician. It has no relation whatsoever to
the case of the wife.

With respect to this case, theres no scenes to me why you have to present
the phycisian in order to establish hypothetical facts. Theres no such thing!

If you are goin to present a witness theres it got testify on the facts obtaining
in the case.

Who supply the facts here related to the psychological incapacity of the wife?
Nobody!

It should be the author of the report that should be presented there. . Q: who was presented as witness in this case? A: the husband. The right that is violated is the right to confront and cross examine the other party and his witnesses. If you were the lawyer of the adverse party. CA Annulment of church wedding. that not hearsay. But if its all about the contents and to explain the contents. Krohn v. And he was to testify on the existent of the psychological evaluation . So if he is going to testify on the report to prove its existence.If you have to prsent a case here. Tip: dont be confused with personal knowledge because that concerns only on the part of the qualification of a witness. Then after that gyou presnt the physicin to testify hypothetically based on the testimony of the husband and that would be relevant as an expert evidence. then you have to present the husband to present the facts. Or mas maayo pa ipa dismiss gud. you should have filed a motion for bill of particular because that ground id so general and it does not state a cause of action. But then you have to provide the facts first and then you have to ask the expert witness of his opinion. Q: If you were the lawyer of the wife what would be your objection? A: irrelevant or hearsay. Not hearsay-because the husband has personal knowledge. Must be based on his own perception. Way hinungdan ni na kaso kay SC should have just said that everything is irrelevant! The testimony has no connection to the case because t should not be based on assumptions! You can only do that when you have an expert witness. Q: What are the requirements of an expert testimony? Q: when can you say or object that a witness is not an expert on the subject? A: Q: what will be the ground if you object by reason that it is hearsay? A: it is hearsay because you cannot cross examine the one who made the report because he is not in the witness or the doctor is not presented and it violates the due process clause of the constitution. thats going to make it relevant. His problems about his wife. Later on the husband filed an annulment case in court on the ground of lack of due discretion. he is disqualified because he is not the one who made the report.

The subpoena duces tecum was directed to the office of the president. Q: why was the subpoena issued? A: to obtain the tapes. And present ka dayon ng hypotheticaal questions based on the testimony. He was charged with conspiracy to defraud with other co conspirators.In this case. Q: why was he interested in the tapes? A: the tapes will reveal the meeting of the president and the others or his assistants. because he is not even a psychiatrist. and etc. deputies and other employees of the whitehouse. . As far as the husband is concerned. Otherwise he could never be allowed to testify as to the subject matter of the case. In this case the husband was presented to speak about the report and its hearsay because you cannot cross examine the author of the report. the counsel was so incompetent because when the husband was presented here to testify about the report. US v. Q: How? A: Lay the credentials before the court. Remember: when you are going to present an expert witness. Or that he cannot testify because he is disqualified to be a witness or expert witness on the subject. papers. memoranda. Remember: this privilege can only be invoked in a civil case and not in a criminal case. one of the objections is that he is not an expert. Nixon (wala ko ka-hear sa nagrecite) First there was an investigation of US Congress and this lead to the investigation of the grand jury. Pres nixon has tape recorder which contains communication. memoranda. Yes. Q: what did the specialprosecutor do in this case? A: requested the production of the tapes. Nixon was named as an unindicted conspirator. papers etc. Q: why would the special prosecutor need these tapes? For what crime is he going to use it? A: conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruction of justice. Pwede unta if you first present the report and you call another psychiatrist to critic the report or to rebut it. So in this case Nixon tried to cover up the crime committed because this involves his direct lieutenants. Nixon publicly released the edited transcripts. the first requirement is that you should qualify the witness before the court. object deretso that the -husband is incompetent to testify that he is not an expert.

Q: what did he reasoned for not releasing other pertinent information? A: presumptive privilege and protection of communication between a goverment official and those who advise and assist him. .