DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (Filial Privilege)

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO INVENCION

G.R. NO. 131636 MARCH 5, 2003
FACTS: Accused Artemio Invencion was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac with 13 counts
of rape against Cynthia, his 16-year-old daughter with his former common-in-law wife Gloria. The cases
were consolidated and jointly tried. At his arraignment, Artemio entered a plea of not guilty in each case.
During the trial, the prosecution presented Artemio’s 8 year-old son with his second common-law wife and
half brother of the victim, Elven Invencion. He testified that one night, while he was sleeping in one room
with his father Artemio, Cynthia and two other younger brothers, he was awakened by his sister’s loud cries.
Looking towards her, he saw his father on top of Cynthia, doing a pumping motion. After about two minutes,
his father put on his short pants. Elven further declared that Artemio was a very strict, cruel and a drunkard
father. He angrily prohibited Cynthia from entertaining any of her suitors. Whenever he was drunk, he would
maul him and quarrel with his stepfather.
On his defense, Artemio attacks the competency and credibility of Elven as a witness. He argues that as
his son, Elven should have been disqualified as a witness against him pursuant to filial privilege. Elven’s
testimony appears not to be his but what the prosecution wanted him to say. Moreover, his son had ill-
motive in testifying against him because he was cruel to him.
The trial court convicted Artemio for one count of rape and acquitted him in all the other 12 cases for lack
of evidence.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT ELVEN INVENCION BE DISQUALIFIED AS A WITNESS PURSUANT TO
THE RULE ON FILIAL PRIVILEGE.
RULING: NO. The competency of Elven to testify is not affected by Sec. 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. – No person shall be compelled to testify against his or her parents,
other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants, except when such testimony is indispensable
in a crime against that person or by one parent against the other.
This rule is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or disqualified to
testify against an ascendant. The rule refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like
other privileges.
As correctly observed by the lower court, Elven was not compelled to testify against his father. He chose to
waive that filial privilege when he voluntarily testified against Artemio. Elven declared that he was testifying
as a witness against his father of his own accord and only “to tell the truth.” Furthermore, there is no
indication that Elven testified because of anger or any ill-motive against his father, nor is there any showing
that he was unduly pressured or influenced by his mother or by any anyone to testify against his father.
Hence, his testimony is entitled to full credence.

DECISION: The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that accused Invencion is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
EVIDENCE MARKED BUT NOT OFFERED
PEOPLE v. CRISPIN CANONIGO
G.R. NO. 133649 AUGUST 4, 2000
FACTS: At 2:00 in the afternoon of May 9, 1996, while Carla and her 5-year-old sister Cay were keeping
watch over their 5 month old baby sister, the accused arrived and inquired if their Kuya Bert was around.
Upon learning that their older brother was not around, Canonigo closed the door, approached Carla and
immediately held her feet. He proceeded to kiss her on the lips and on her neck. Remembering news
accounts that rapists often kill their victims, the frightened girl kept silent. When the accused’s bestial lust
had been satisfied, he left. Carla and Cay then hurriedly left their house to report the incident to their mother.
Upon telling her about the grisly incident, the latter reported the matter to the Barangay Captain immediately.
Accused Canonigo was arrested and brought to the barangay hall.
An Information was filed against the accused charging him for the crime of rape against Carla Jean Malanay
who is a minor 12 years old against her will and consent. Canonigo pleaded not guilty on the basis that the
victim offered no resistance to what he did.
He also claims that while he intended to have a sexual intercourse with the child, he became troubled with
his conscience and did not proceed with his plan. He testified during trial that at the time of the commission
of the crime, he was still under 18 years of age having been born on January 7, 1979 which was also alleged
by his stepmother.
He presented as a witness an employee of the Local Civil Registrar of Taguig to testify that the former’s
birth was not registered but she was able to obtain a baptismal certificate issued by the Archdiocese of
Taguig. The baptismal certificate reflects the true date of birth of Canonigo as January 11, 1978, it was
marked as “Exhibit 2” but the defense did not offer it as evidence in the court.
The trial rendered a decision finding accused Canonigo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not the baptismal certificate be admitted as evidence to qualify the mitigating
circumstance of minority of the accused.
RULING: NO. The baptismal certificate of Cononigo, although marked as an exhibit, was never formally
offered in evidence. When the defense was about to formally offer its exhibits, the defense counsel
manifested to the trial court that Cononigo’s father took hold of the said certificate and has refused to return
it.
Consequently, the said documentary exhibit may not be taken cognizance of pursuant to Section 34 of Rule
132 of the Rules of Court which provides that, “The court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered.”
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the baptismal certificate which reflected accused’s date of birth has not
been formally offered in evidence, the court may take note of the said date of birth as reflected in the
baptismal certificate. During the course of the trial, repeated references have been made by the counsel for
the accused to his date of birth as appearing in the said baptismal certificate.
In the case of People vs. de Roxas and People vs. Tanjutco, the Court held that the absence of any formal
presentation of certain exhibits does not render their consideration thereof a reversible error. If repeated
references thereto in the course of trial by counsel for accused and of the court convincingly show that the
documents were part of prosecution's evidence.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is with more reason that the court could take cognizance of Canonigo's
date of birth as appearing in the baptismal certificate. Inasmuch as repeated references thereto have been
made in the course of trial by the counsel for the accused and by the court, which fact convincingly show
that the said document was part of the evidence of the defense.
The fact that the defense did not bother to formally offer in evidence the said document although it was
given ample time to do so, only bolsters the presumption that the presentation of that document was
suppressed by the defense because it contained a fact or declaration that was adverse to accused
Canonigo.
DECISION: The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that accused Canonigo is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.