By Obiter07
No one seems to keep secrets nowadays or is able to. History attributes to a violation of the seal of confession as the reason why the Katipunan was discovered prematurely. In such an age of prying eyes and even eavesdropping, some through electronic means, who are obliged to keep your secrets safe? At least, in the sense that these cannot be used against you in a court of law.
So who can you really reveal things to? In fine, you can be open to your spouse, lawyer, doctor or minister. In turn, your parents, descendants and ascendants can likewise tell you everything, even their most nefarious criminal plans. This is because of the treatment given by the Rules of Court for what it defines as “privileged communication”. (All the citations relate to the Rules on Evidence).
During the marriage “neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse xxx” (Section 22, Rule 130). In addition, a “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” (Section 24 [a], Rule 130). So everything said between the spouses should stay between them.
The exception is if it involves a “civil case by one against the other” such as a case of annulment of marriage. Or if it is about a “criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.” So if you assault your wife’s relative and she sees it, she can testify against you.
One authority states that you can marry someone to stop his or her testimony since the privilege applies for as long as there is a valid marriage at the time of trial (Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. V, 1999, p.306). It is almost like sealing something with a kiss. Just make sure that the sentence you are exchanging is worse than the one you are getting into.
“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 xxx”. Regardless of what you can say about lawyers, they are supposed to be able to keep a secret. And this extends to “an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk xxx, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity xxx (Section 24 [b]).
“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 xxx” (Section 24 [c]). Please note that this only covers civil cases and only if it is about an unspeakable illness. So a doctor might just be able to tell all about that procedure you got, for something not long enough, big enough or small enough. Hard to think of a criminal case involving such appendages though.
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” (Section 24 [d]). Your sins can remain private and will have to be established without the help of a priest who may know about them best.
The Rules further provide that “No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants (Section 25).” But if you want to, then they may be in big trouble (and you too for causing it).
For those in government, 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” (Section 24 [e]).” This should not cover contracts with kickbacks which are solely in the public officer’s, and not the public’s, interest.
Please note that these are all under the Rules on Evidence, where the privilege, if not waived, serves to bar testimony obtained in violation of the same. Such testimony cannot be used against you unless you allow it.
It is another matter, however, whether you can penalize these individuals when they reveal information that they are supposed to keep to themselves in some other forum. By then, the damage to you may have been done.
You will then have to be satisfied with, for example, filing a case of disbarment against a lawyer for violating ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor is likewise a crime under Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of doctors, you can ask that disciplinary measures be taken before their professional association. You can complain to the church if the confessional has been breached. But what do you say to a wife or husband who reveals your secrets? Nothing. And if you keep on saying nothing, then you don’t have anything to worry about anymore.
So next time, be open only to people who will have to keep a secret when you really need them to. Or better yet, just keep them to yourself.
N.B. Executive Privilege is a special topic and is discussed in a previous post.
No comments:
Post a Comment