Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Zulueta Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Debz Perez
    1) Cecilia Zulueta forcibly opened drawers and cabinets in her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic and seized 157 documents, including private correspondence and photographs. 2) The issue is whether the seized documents are admissible as evidence in Zulueta's legal separation and disqualification cases against her husband. 3) The court ruled the documents inadmissible, as the constitutional right to privacy of communication applies equally to husbands and wives, and was violated by the seizure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zulueta Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Debz Perez
    49 views1 page
    1) Cecilia Zulueta forcibly opened drawers and cabinets in her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic and seized 157 documents, including private correspondence and photographs. 2) The issue is whether the seized documents are admissible as evidence in Zulueta's legal separation and disqualification cases against her husband. 3) The court ruled the documents inadmissible, as the constitutional right to privacy of communication applies equally to husbands and wives, and was violated by the seizure.

    Original Title

    zulueta vs CA digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Cecilia Zulueta forcibly opened drawers and cabinets in her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic and seized 157 documents, including private correspondence and photographs. 2) The issue is whether the seized documents are admissible as evidence in Zulueta's legal separation and disqualification cases against her husband. 3) The court ruled the documents inadmissible, as the constitutional right to privacy of communication applies equally to husbands and wives, and was violated by the seizure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views1 page

    Zulueta Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Debz Perez
    1) Cecilia Zulueta forcibly opened drawers and cabinets in her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic and seized 157 documents, including private correspondence and photographs. 2) The issue is whether the seized documents are admissible as evidence in Zulueta's legal separation and disqualification cases against her husband. 3) The court ruled the documents inadmissible, as the constitutional right to privacy of communication applies equally to husbands and wives, and was violated by the seizure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    [G.R. No. 107383. February 20, 1996.

    CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN,


    respondents.

    Facts:

    Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982,
    petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother,
    a driver and private respondents secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husbands
    clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his
    alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and
    photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal
    separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against
    her husband.

    Issue:

    a) WON the seized documents and papers are admissible in evidence.

    b) WON the marriage between a husband and wife exempt one from his/her right to privacy.

    Ruling:

    Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional
    injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable is no less
    applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husbands infidelity)
    who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception
    to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order [from a] court or when public
    safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders
    the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

    The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers
    and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A
    person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
    individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

    You might also like