GROUP 6:

Baucan, Kareen Mae B.

Boligor, Terry Louise

Espedilla, Fredelina

RULE 28
Physical and Mental Examination of Persons

As to its applicability:

SEC. 1. When Examination may be ordered – In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a
party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in its discretion order him to submit a
physical or mental examination by a physician (1)

When may physical and mental examination of persons be ordered?

- It may be ordered in an action in which the physical or mental condition of a party is in controversy.

Examples:

The mental condition of a party is in controversy in proceedings for guardianship over an imbecile or
insane person, while the physical condition of a party is generally involved in physical injuries cases.

a) Declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground psychological incapacity. Under the Family Code,
however, the state of psychological incapacity must not have been existing only now for the first time. It
must have existed at the time of the marriage;

b) Annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency. The court can issue an order to subject the party to
undergo physical or medical examination by a doctor to test whether the allegation is true or not;

c) Annulment of contract on the ground of insanity at the time of execution (lack of consent);

d) Physical disability due to quasi-delicts (e.g. vehicular accident).

e) The mental condition of a party is in controversy in proceedings for guardianship over an imbecile or
insane person, while the physical condition of a party is generally involved in physical injuries cases.

Since the results of the examination are intended to be made public, the same are not covered by the
physician-patient privilege (Sec. 24b, R 130).

As to the procedure:

SEC. 2. Order for examination – The order for examination may be made only upon motion for good cause
shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties, and shall specify the time,
place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be
made. (2)
Requisites:

1. The physical or mental condition must be a subject of controversy of the action.

2. A motion showing good cause must be filed.

3. Notice of the motion must be given to the party to be examined and to all other parties.

4. The motion shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and the
scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is made.

Good cause - that the examination be made without danger to the party's life or health or infliction upon
him of serious pain.

Sec. 3. Report of findings. - If requested by the party examined, the party causing the examination to be
made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out his
findings and conclusions. After such request and delivery, the party causing the examination to be made
shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party examined a like report of any examination,
previously or thereafter made, of the same mental or physical condition. If the party examined refuses to
deliver such report, the court on motion and notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms
as are just, and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court may exclude his testimony if
offered at the trial. (3a)

As to waiver of privilege:

Sec. 4. Waiver of privilege. - By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by
taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action
or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has
examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical examination. (4)

What is the effect if the party refuses to deliver the report upon request to the person causing the
examination to be made?

- The court may order requiring the delivery on such terms as are just.

What is the effect if the physician refuses or fails to make a report?

- The court may exclude his testimony.

What is the effect if the party examined requests and obtains a report on the results of the
examination?

1. He has to furnish the other party a copy of the report of any previous or subsequent
examination of the same physical and mental condition.

2. He waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy
regarding the testimony of every other person who has so examined or may thereafter examine him.
 [G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005]
ARNEL L. AGUSTIN vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE

FACTS: Arnel courted Fe in 1992, after which they entered into an intimate relationship. Arnel
impregnated Fe on her 34th birthday on November 10, 1999. Arnel insisted on abortion, but, Fe decided
otherwise and gave birth to their child out of wedlock, Martin, on August 11, 2000 at the Capitol Medical
Hospital in Quezon City. The baby’s birth certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as the father.

Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital expenses but later refused Fe’s repeated requests for
Martin’s support despite his adequate financial capacity and even suggested to have the child committed
for adoption. Arnel also denied having fathered the child.

On March 5, 2002, Fe and Martin sued Arnel for support. Arnel denied having sired Martin. He claimed
that Fe had other lovers. Arnel claimed that the signature and the community tax certificate (CTC) attributed
to him in the acknowledgment of Martins birth certificate were falsified. The CTC erroneously reflected his
marital status as single when he was actually married and that his birth year was 1965 when it should have
been 1964.

In his pre-trial brief filed on May 17, 2002, Arnel vehemently denied having sired Martin but expressed
willingness to consider any proposal to settle the case. On July 23, 2002, Fe and Martin moved for the
issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing pursuant to Rule
28 of the Rules of Court.

Arnel opposed said motion by invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. He also moved
to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action, considering that his signature on the birth certificate
was a forgery and that, under the law, an illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recognized by the
putative father. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered the parties to submit
themselves to DNA paternity testing at the expense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court.

ISSUES:

- Whether DNA paternity testing can be ordered in a proceeding for support without violating
petitioners constitutional right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
- Whether the CA erred in ordering the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing

HELD: The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion.
The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incrimination but as part of object evidence. Over the years, the SC have expressly excluded several kinds
of object evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm of self-incrimination. These include
photographs, hair, and other bodily substances.

The SC have also declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the accused such as
pregnancy tests for women accused of adultery, expulsion of morphine from ones mouth and the tracing of
ones foot to determine its identity with bloody footprints. In Jimenez v. Caizares, the SC even authorized
the examination of a woman’s genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband, to verify his claim
that she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis. Some of these procedures were, to be sure,
rather invasive and involuntary, but all of them were constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results,
per the ruling in Yatar, are now similarly acceptable.

In the instant case, the petitioner has in no way shown any arbitrariness, passion, prejudice or personal
hostility that would amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals.

The decision of the respondent court, being firmly anchored in law and jurisprudence, was correct.
 G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012
HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.,

FACTS:

Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Manila for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessman from Laos,
Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend the hearing held on
September 9, 2004. However, trial dates were subsequently postponed due to his unavailability.

The private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping,
alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia
and that, upon doctor's advice, he could not make the long travel to the Philippines by reason of ill health.

Notwithstanding petitioners' Opposition, the MeTC granted the motion after the prosecution complied with
the directive to submit a Medical Certificate of Li Luen Ping. Petitioners sought its reconsideration which
the MeTC denied, prompting petitioners to file a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC.

RTC granted the petition and declared the MeTC Orders null and void. Upon denial by the RTC of
their motion for reconsideration through an Order dated March 5, 2006, the prosecution elevated the case
to the CA. The CA sustained the MeTC ruling and denied petitioners’ MR.

ISSUES:

Whether or not CA erred in sustaining the judicial legislation committed by the MeTC in applying the
rule on deposition-taking in civil case to criminal cases.

HELD:

Yes. The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open court. This is true
especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to
meet the witnesses against him face to face.

The procedure under Rule 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court allows the taking of depositions in civil cases,
either upon oral examination or written interrogatories, before any judge, notary public or person authorized
to administer oaths at any time or place within the Philippines; or before any Philippine consular official,
commissioned officer or person authorized to administer oaths in a foreign state or country, with no
additional requirement except reasonable notice in writing to the other party.

But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution witness
who would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be made before the court,
or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15,
Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take place at no other place than
the court where the case is pending, the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to
take the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia.