SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY:

     Under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced” does not apply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and (d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this case.  First, the defense had the opportunity to subpoena Rowena even if the prosecution did not present her as a witness.  Instead, the defense failed to call her to the witness stand.  Second, Rowena was certified to be suffering from “Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition” and thus “cannot stand judicial proceedings yet.” The non-presentation, therefore, of Rowena was not willful.  Third, in any case, while Rowena was the victim, Nimfa was also present and in fact witnessed the violation committed on her sister. (People vs. Padrigone [2002]).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl