Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 1

Topic:

1. Interpretation of Documents
2. Testimonial Evidence
a. Qualifications of witness
1. ability to observe/perceive
2. ability to recall/remember
3. ability to relate/communicate
b. Disqualifications
1. Mental incapacity or immaturity
2. Marital Disqualification
3. Death/Insanity (Dead Man’s Statute)
4. Privileged Communication
Executive Privilege

Sabi nung counsel kasi ipit na ipit na yung client niya eh, aamin na. Sabi ba naman, “I invoke my client’s right
to silence.” Sabi ko, “paňero, last week mo pa ginagawa yan, pwede ba mag-aral ka naman. There is no such
right during deposition, the right only obtains when you are being arrested.” Sabi niya, “well, I invoke my
client’s right against self-incrimination.” Yan, pwede pa. Pero only when the incriminatory question is asked.
You cannot make a blanket invocation of that right. Sabi ba naman niya, “well we have a different
understanding of the law.” Hmm. Sabihin ko sana, sa linggo may klase ako ng consti2, umattend ka nang
matutunan mo ha. Ang bobo, bwisit. Kaya kayo ang objective niyo, di lang pumasa ng bar ha. Ang objective
niyo maging maayos na abogado. Hindi yung aappear sa court na tatanga-tanga. Bwisit. Sinisira niyo mga
pangalan ng mga abogado. Ang sama ko, no? Ang pinakamasamang kalaban yung bobo na siya, di pa niya
alam. Mahirap kalaban yun. Yung ang bobo bobo niya pero feeling niya ang galing galing niya. Mahirap
kalaban kasi nakakapagod. Mahirap kausap yung ganung tao eh. Kala niya ang galing galing niya. Jusko.
Anyway. Mag-aral kayo ha. Dahil kapag nakaharap ko kayo sa korte tapos tatanga tanga kayo, hihiyain ko
kayo. Paparevoke ko diploma niyo.

4. Interpretation of Documents

Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. — The language of a writing is to be
interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended
otherwise. (8)

Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. — In the construction of an instrument, where
there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to
all. (9)

Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. — In the construction of an
instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is
inconsistent with it. (10)

Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it,
may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret. (11)
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 2

Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. — The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their
primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or
otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the
agreement must be construed accordingly. (12)

Section 15. Written words control printed. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of
a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. (13)

Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. — When the characters in which an
instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the
evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to
declare the characters or the meaning of the language. (14)

Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. — When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a
different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed
the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is
to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. (15)

Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. — When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted. (16)

Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to
determine its true character. (17)

Testimonial Evidence

What is testimonial evidence?

Testimonial evidence is evidence elicited from the mouth of the witness. Like any other evidence, it must be
relevant, competent and offered. As mentioned earlier, unlike object or documentary evidence, it need not be
authenticated. Why? Because it comes directly from the mouth of the witness. So if the witness is competent
and his testimony is relevant, then we need not authenticate.

1. Qualification of Witnesses

Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons
who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise
provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification.

Is Mocha Uson qualified as a witness? Yes. The criticism against her does not go against her qualification as a
witness but goes into her credibility as a witness. Just like when we’re talking about documentary evidence,
it’s one thing to talk about admissibility of the evidence and it is another thing to talk about the weight of that
evidence. So we can hear Miss Mocha, like the senate wants to, but we need not believe her. Those are two
different things. She is qualified to become a witness but according to your argument, she may not be that
incredible. There’s the difference between the two.

Marcos v Navarro: The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other
than those mentioned in the Rules. The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein.
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 3

In other words, kung ano lang ang dinidisqualify ng rule, sila lang ang disqualified na maging witness. Based
on what we have discussed so far, let’s try to summarize.

How do we know if the person is qualified to become a witness?

1. He can perceive
2. In perceiving, he can make known his perception to others
3. He must take an oath or affirmation
4. He must not be disqualified under the Rules

No. 3, I forgot to discuss, but do not forget that because if the witness is not willing to take an oath or
affirmation, then he cannot take the witness stand. Now, let’s try to break it down.

Ability to perceive – that means there is no physical impediment, meaning he can perceive… and he has
personal knowledge of the facts he would testify to.

Ability to make known his perception: ability to remember what happened and ability to communicate

Oath or affirmation is required because it will show his willingness or understanding of the nature of an oath
and also, his moral duty to tell the truth.

That includes also that he possesses none of the disqualifications, so we need to know what are the
disqualifications.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise
provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification.

They are not disqualified as specific law says so. For example, the law says that conviction of perjury, false
testimony or falsification of document disqualifies a witness from being a witness in a will. So under that law,
a convict of such crime cannot be a witness in a will. So if there is a law, otherwise, you are not. However, the
rules clearly sate that while they are not disqualified as a witness, it may affect however their credibility. Just
like when you are trying to convict of former Secretary of Justice and you are using convicted drug pushers as
your main witness, then you have a problem with credibility. I’m not referring to any particular case ha. Just
saying, it affects the credibility. Kasi class, kumuha ka ng mga taong naconvict, binigyan mo sila ng
opportunity to get back at the prosecutor. Right? Syempre, may problema sa credibility nung witness na yun.
Lalo na they were convicted of a crime which is serious. They are not disqualified to become witnesses but
there may be an issue on their credibility.

Now, under Sec. 21. The rule says:

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot
be witnesses:

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they
are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

Please take note, under A, it refers to mental condition at the time they are presented for examination… so if
there is a problem with their mental condition when they are presented for examination, making them
incapable of making known their perception, then they are disqualified.
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 4

Now, b however says… you will note here that the mental maturity refers to the time of the event and at the
time of examination. Kita niyo yung difference between mental incapacity and mental immaturity?

People v Golimlim: It can not then be gainsaid that a mental retardate can be a witness, depending on his or her ability
to relate what he or she knows. If his or her testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in court.

To be sure, modern rules on evidence have downgraded mental incapacity as a ground to disqualify a witness. As
observed by McCormick, the remedy of excluding such a witness who may be the only person available who knows the
facts, seems inept and primitive. Our rules follow the modern trend of evidence.

For as long as the witness can perceive and make known her perception, then she is qualified to be a witness.
In this case, the accused was saying she’s not capable of perceiving, she’s crazy, di ba if you’ll ask her, she will
say that kung sino sino pumatong sa kanya. So why did the court come to conclusion that No, No, No, that’s
not true, she’s able to perceive. Anong sabi ng court? While it’s true, sinabi niyang maraming pumatong sa
kanya, still, pag tinanong siya, sinong tatay ng anak mo? She has consistently answered na yung tiyo niya. So
the consistency, capacity to perceive, and she was able to answer although not in the usual and normal way so
she can make her perception known to others. Therefore, the SC said, she is qualified and in fact, the SC
believed her testimony; not only she’s qualified, she’s also credible.

In rape cases, usually, your only witness is the victim. Mahirap ‘to lalo nap ag bata yung victim. That’s why
the SC created special rules on child examination.

A.M. NO. 004-07-SC

RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS

(a) A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18)
years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable
to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

Section 6. Competency. - Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall
conduct a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.

The presumption is that the child is qualified and if you fill that the child is disqualified, then the burden is on
you to prove that.

Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the husband nor the
wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants.

The reasons given for the rule are:

1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife; (sir: because two become one which is a lie)

2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of perjury;
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 5

3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and

4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
testimony of the other.

In other words, we don’t want the spouse to perjure herself/himself because of his/her LOVE for his/her
spouse. And we don’t want to destroy the relationship of the couple. So because of the duty to protect the
marriage, we have the marital disqualification rule.

Please take note this is under Section 22, but there is a similar rule under Section 24.

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify
as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent
of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

Please take note, they sound similar but these are two different rules.

Section 24 (Marital Privilege) Section 22 (Marital Disqualification)

Information received in confidence from the
spouse
Information
Information obtained during the marriage
Maybe objected to even after the dissolution
of the marriage
Applies even the spouses are not parties to
the case
Source of information
Spouse is disqualified (regardless of the info)
Facts even prior to the marriage
No longer applies when there’s no more
marriage
Spouse must be a party to the action

One is a disqualification as a witness, the other is disqualification of information obtained by the spouse, she
cannot testify about the information she obtained as a spouse.

Alvarez v Ramirez: But like all other general rules, the marital disqualification rule has its own exceptions, both in civil
actions between the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other. Like the rule itself, the
exceptions are backed by sound reasons which, in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule. For
instance, where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace
and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case,
identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, in
such a situation, the security and confidences of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals,
which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.

People v Castaňeda:

What was his interpretation of the rule that the SC said he’s wrong? He interpreted the rule to mean that it
requires the crime to result in a physical wrong against the spouse. Here, he alleged that the crime was
falsification of document, therefore, there was no physical wrong against the wife.
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 6

In this case class, it was the contention that the exception pertains to a crime of a physical wrong against a
spouse. The SC said that that interpretation was too narrow. The SC said:

The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the is too narrow; and the rule that any offense remotely
or indirectly affecting domestic within the exception is too broad. The better rule is that, WHEN AN OFFENSE
DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE CONJUGAL RELATION, IT COMES
WITHIN THE EXCEPTION to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal
prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the other.

Therefore, wala ng public policy to protect. By his own acts, he has destroyed that union and therefore, as we
already mentioned earlier, the public policy is to protect the marriage but by his own acts, he destroyed that
union and therefore, he should not be allowed to benefit from that disqualification.

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignor of parties
to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against
the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.

Dead Man’s Statute:

The reason for the rule is that if persons having a claim against the estate of the deceased or his properties were allowed to
testify as to the supposed statements made by him (deceased person), many would be tempted to falsely impute statements
to deceased persons as the latter can no longer deny or refute them, thus unjustly subjecting their properties or rights to
false or unscrupulous claims or demands. The purpose of the law is to "guard against the temptation to give false
testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party.”

Sunga-Chan v Chua:

First, petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim against respondents in their answer before the trial court, and with the
filing of their counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit of the "Dead Man's
Statute". Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of the estates that
sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death of the deceased to
defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from testifying as to
matters of facts occurring before the death of the deceased, said action not having been brought against but by the estate or
representatives of the deceased.

Bordalba v CA: The dead man’s statute does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming
to his knowledge in any other way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or communication made by
the deceased to the witness.

Class, the Dead Man’s statute is supposed to kumbaga prevent any fraudulent claims against a dead peson
kasi pag patay na ko, ang daming pwedeng magclaim na may utang sakin yan. Umutang sakin yan. So the
reason behind the rule is important, pag nagclaim kang may utang sayo yung patay na, wala nang
pagkakataon yung patay to refute your claim. So t prevent those false claims, there is the dead man’s statute.
But in this case, in answer to my earlier question about the promissory note, pano yun? Bordalba says teka
muna, it does not operate to close the mouth of the witness. It only prohibits him from testifying personal
dealings and transactions what the dead say or did not say before he died. Eh ditto, merong document, he can
testify as to that document. So to answer my earlier question about the promissory note, he can testify and
authenticate that document. He is not testifying as to personal transaction or communication with the decease,
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 7

rather he is testifying as to how he acquired the knowledge because he was a participant when that document
was executed. The only reason is to prevent false claims against a dead person. Because the dead is not there to
defend himself. So if he acquired his knowledge in any other way, then he can testify as to that, he can also
testify as to documents executed prior to the death of the deceased.

The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death,
insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the
introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:

"1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to case or persons in whose behalf a case in prosecuted.

2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person of
unsound mind;

3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against
person of unsound mind;

4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact of which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before
such person became of unsound mind."

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify
as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent
of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

So even after the marriage is dissolved, you cannot extract that information. Why? Because again, it’s the
public policy on the marriage. You don’t want the wife or the husband keeping secrets from his or her spouse
dahil natatakot ka nab aka mamaya pag naghiwalay kami neto magtestify siya laban sakin. So habang kasal
kayo, you must rest assured whatever you tell your wife or your husband, hindi siya pwedeng magtestify
about that. The public policy is to encourage you to open up with your spouse knowing he/she cannot testify
against you about that information even after marriage. So yun yung dahilan don.

Lacurom v Jacoba: Firstly, his Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition did not contain a denial of his wifes account.
Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by stating that he trained his guns and fired at the errors
which he perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental.

The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the claimant to object timely to its
presentation or by any conduct that may be construed as implied consent. This waiver applies to Jacoba who impliedly
admitted authorship of the 30 July 2001 motion.

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity.
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 8

Ganun talaga kapag di mo alam ang batas. Pero judge yun. Tangang Judge.

Samala v Valencia: Canon 21 and the rule on privilege communication between attorney and client are both
premise on the belief that the attorney-client relationship must be protected. The idea being the client must
have confidence in his counsel to tell his counsel everything without fear. That is why we are prohibited from
testifying from any communication with the client. That is the very same reason why we are prohibited from
representing conflicting interests. Why? Because the premise is this client told me everything, and if I take in
the other client, that client would also tell me everything. Anong masama dun? Eventually I’ll betray one or
both. Because I gathered information but I am now allowed to disclose to anyone. But if I represent both
parties, then without disclosing to anyone, I can betray their weakness. That is why the rule on privilege
communication exists.

Now, paglilinaw lang kasi I have a lawyer, we have a case where both clients want us to represent them. Of
course we disclosed that. May conflict because while you are both defendants on the same case, the claim of
one client would make the other client ultimately liable. But both parties agreed. China wall lang kayo.

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity,
which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient.

Chan v Chan:

Reason for the rule: The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a physician who gets
information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the patient’s consent as to
any facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the
physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the physician to make a
correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be compelled in the
future to come to court and narrate all that had transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam
up, thus putting his own health at great risk.

Wife’s argument: Josielene of course claims that the hospital records subject of this case are not privileged
since it is the "testimonial" evidence of the physician that may be regarded as privileged. Section 24(c) of Rule
130 states that the physician "cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined" regarding
their professional conversation. The privilege, says Josielene, does not cover the hospital records, but only the
examination of the physician at the trial.

SC: To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records—the results of tests that the
physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, and the advice or treatment he gave him—would be to allow
access to evidence that is inadmissible without the patient’s consent. Physician memorializes all these information in the
patient’s records. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on privileged matters he
gained while dealing with the patient, without the latter’s prior consent.

(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be
examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character
in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 9

Please take note it doesn’t mention any religion so it doesn’t matter which church. The public policy here is to
encourage you to open and freely confess your sins to whatever spiritual advisor. That is the reason behind the
rule.

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made
to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.

Does this not conflict with what we have learned in Consti Law I of public accountability and public
disclosure?

Almonte v Vasquez: Almonte was claiming privilege in his petition to quash the subpoena duces tecum
issued by the Ombudsman. He was arguing that as an agency tasked with gathering economic intelligence
information, they employ intelligence agents and if compelled to produce their personnel records, the names
of their agents would be exposed. Sabi ng SC: hoy gago!

There is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the
personnel of the EIIB. Indeed, EIIB's function is the gathering and evaluation of intelligence reports and information
regarding "illegal activities affecting the national economy, such as, but not limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling,
tax evasion, dollar salting." Consequently, while in cases which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to determine
from the circumstances of the case that there is reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military
matters without compelling production, no similar excuse can be made for a privilege resting on other considerations.

Kung ang privilege na iniinvoke mo involves military or police matters, pwede yan. Pero in this case,
iniinvoke mo yan for matters other than those military matters or diplomatic matters, then you need to prove
that to us. You need to prove that public interest will suffer. If you cannot prove then you cannot enjoy the
privilege. Yun ang sinasabi ng SC dito sa Almonte. Now in the syllabus, sinabi dun pagdating dun sa privilege
of government officials, you need to look at two other cases. Senate v Ermita and Neri v Senate.

Senate v Ermita, you already studied in Consti Law I where we talked about this case where the Executive
Secretary informed the Senate that they are invoking executive privilege thereby preventing cabinet officials
from testifying. Ermita was sued by the Senate before the SC because they were saying this impairs the right of
the Senate to investigate in aid of legislation which is a constitutional duty. The SC clarified executive privilege
can be invoked but it cannot be a general invocation, meaning di porke nasa executive branch ka, automatic
you have the privilege. Instead, it must be the President or in his stead, the Executive Secretary can invoke the
privilege and once invoked then the Senate cannot compel members of the executive to testify before it.

Neri v Senate Committee came subsequent because the Senate was not satisfied with the letter of Malacanang
claiming privilege over Romulo Neri from testifying with respect to the broadband deal. In this case, the
Senate held in contempt Sec. Neri despite the ruling in Senate v Ermita. Sabi nila kasi hindi naman daw sapat
yung dahilan ni Neri to invoke the privilege. Ironically, they were citing Senate v Ermita. Because they were
saying, the SC said in Senate v Ermita that there is no presumption of privilege. But in the Neri case, the SC
clarified, minimislead niyo yung decision namin, ang sabi naming don members of the executive branch,
cabinet members/secretaries do not enjoy the presumption of privilege but the president does. So bakit yan
siningit sa syllabus? Those two cases you should have learned in Consti1, that is discussed here in connection
with the rule on executive privilege. The executive privilege of course applies only to executive officers, for
public officers, there is no presumption. They have to prove to the court so that the court will find that
disclosure would result to damage to public interest. Operationally what does that mean? Operationally, that
means that you’re a public officer being asked to testify on matters relating to your position tulad nung
example ko kanina kay Miss Galicia (police chief pinatawag to testify on the intelligence report) and you feel
that public interest will suffer, then you should file a motion before the court who issued the subpoena to
quash the subpoena saying that you cannot testify invoking privilege. But if you do that, the burden is on you
 Evidence | 22 February 2018 | 10

to prove that public interest will suffer because as stated in Almonte, there is no presumption in your favor.
There is a presumption in favor of the President which you do not enjoy even if you are a public officer. There
are privileges reserve only for the President.