Deinla, Ronnel A.

11780541
Practice Court II – G03
DLSU

I Confess

1. What is present state of the priest-penitent privilege in our laws in

evidence? Given the rules of evidence today, how will that case be
resolved?

Under the Rules, a minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be

so cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be examined as to any
communication or confession made to or any advice given by him or her, in
his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the
church to which the minister or priest belongs.

Given said rule, the case would have been resolved the same way.
Father Logan was not before the courts to give his testimony regarding the
murder of Mr. Villette. He himself was being tried for murder. The jury could
have convicted him using circumstantial evidence. There was motive and the
unnarrated time between 11pm and 11:45pm, except for the testimony of
Keller. However, it may have been the fact that Father Logan was a priest
that tilted the ruling in his favor.

During trial, Father Logan did not even invoke the priest-penitent
privilege. All he said was that “he cannot say” when asked if he could narrate
his version of the truth. That was enough to acquit him of the crime charged.

2. What could Fr Logan could have done to expose the murderer

without breaking his vow?

Father Logan could have invoked the priest-penitent privilege during

his cross-examination. That would have explained his behavior in not making
a corroborating statement. The prosecution then would have to look for
another suspect that could have no alibi for the material timeframe. The
person who did not have an alibi was Otto Keller, even though he was merely
presented merely to offer his testimony.
 Keller was examined before Father Logan. He was not questioned
regarding his whereabouts during the time Mr. Villette was murdered. The
questioning went straight to what he saw one night at the church. However,
he admitted being in the church at the time between 11:15 pm and 11:45 pm.
If Father Logan were to invoke the privilege, then the prosecution would only
need to establish who were the persons inside the church at the time. Father
Logan could have simply said that he was in the church to hear a confession.

Since Keller already admitted that he and Father Logan were the only
persons present during the material timeframe, the facts would only point to
the conclusion that Father Logan heard the confession of Keller. This way,
Father Logan would have admitted to the fact of confession, but not the
confession made to him.