Value of expert testimony

In the Tan-Andal v. Andal case, I was concerned that expert testimony will be worthless in proving psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court, in this case, categorically said that such testimony, through a psychiatrist or psychologist, is not entailed precisely because psychological incapacity is a legal concept rather than a medical condition.

With that, mere ordinary witnesses can testify on such incapacity. Based on the totality of the evidence presented sans expert testimony, the trial court can determine if indeed such incapacity exists.

Note though that the Supreme Court, in the said case, declared that expert testimony may be dispensed with. It did not expressly prohibit the presentation of such. But then again, with the pronouncement that mere ordinary witnesses can testify, what now is the value of expert testimony? Is it still necessary? Let us see.

C and J married after the pair got romantically involved eventually resulting in the pregnancy of C. In the early part of their marriage, C already noticed J's strong attachment to his friends. He frequently spent time with them the whole evening. He got up the next day at noontime as he was jobless, relying merely on his parents for support. C on the other hand, after giving birth, went back to college where she in time graduated with distinction. J, while he finished a certification course in culinary arts, could not hold a steady job. He quit after two weeks as a cook in Boracay; and resigned after three months in a two-year contract in Dubai. J lived a carefree life, drinking with friends. He later became belligerent towards C and engaged her in intimacy where the latter felt she was being raped.

Because of all this, C left J to work in Manila. Thereafter, she landed a job in Singapore. She later discovered that J sired a child with another woman. This prompted her to file for the nullity declaration of her marriage.

During the trial, C testified and presented her mother and Dr. T, a psychologist. Dr. T testified that J was psychologically incapacitated and rendered a thorough report on the matter. Eventually, the trial court granted C's petition. The Office of the Solicitor General, however, frowned upon the decision. It appealed the case to the Court of Appeals arguing that the totality of the evidence presented did not prove J's psychological incapacity. The appellate court gave its thumbs up to the OSG's appeal. It was thus C's turn to appeal, bringing the matter up to the Supreme Court.

The Highest Court found favor in C's arguments. It ruled that she was able to prove J's psychological incapacity. As regards the issue of expert testimony, the Supreme Court had this to say.

"Highlighting that the psychological incapacity need not be proven by an expert, the Court, in the more recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, clarified that psychological incapacity is neither a mental nor a personality disorder that must be proven through an expert opinion."

"While expert testimony is not required in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage, the Court nonetheless finds that it should be given weight and taken into consideration in the resolution of this case. Dr. Tayag amplified the reasons why the personality disorder of Jasper is considered grave, deeply rooted in his childhood, and incurable."

In so pronouncing this, the Supreme Court mentioned that "Dr. Tayag, the clinical psychologist who was presented as an expert witness, stated that she was able to conduct a series of psychological evaluations of both Claudine and Jasper. She said Jasper was suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, as shown by impulsivity, irresponsible attitude, and lack of regard for others. Per the report of Dr. Tayag, this disorder was seen in the following: (a) he is short-sighted, incautious, imprudent, and does not plan ahead, consider alternatives, or heed consequences; (b) he is untrustworthy and unreliable, and either fails to meet or intentionally neglects his personal obligation of a marital, parental, occupational or financial nature; (c) he is disdainful of traditional ideas, fails to conform to social norms, and is contemptuous of conventional values; and (d) he is insensitive, irritable, and aggressive, as expressed in wide-ranging deficit in social charitableness, compassion, and remorse."

As can be seen above, despite new jurisprudence dispensing with an expert, the Supreme Court very much considered the findings of the psychologist in determining whether J is psychologically incapacitated or not. Personally and as I have written before, despite Tan-Andal, I still use, and believe in, the presentation of an expert witness in proving the psychological incapacity of a party in the cases I handle.