Hearsay & Opinion Rule

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    1/66

    THEREVISEDRULESONEVIDENCE:

    Codal Provisions,

    Special Laws &

    Jurisprudence

    Class of 3-C2003-2004

    Atty. Francis Edralin LimAteneo De Manila School of Law

    Volume

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    2/66

    Evidence Project Volumes

    ol!me "# $. Admissi%ility of E&idence$$. 'hat (eed (ot )e *ro&ed

    $$$. +eal Demonstrati&e E&idence$. )est E&idence +!le

    ol!me 2# . *arole E&idence +!le$. $nter,retation of Doc!ments$$. !alifications of 'itnesses

    $$$. *ri&ileed Comm!nications

    ol!me 3# $/. Admissions Confessions/. Cond!ct Character

    ol!me 4# /$. 1earsay +!le/$$. ,inion +!le

    ol!me # /$$$. )!rden of *roof *res!m,tions/$. *resentation of E&idence *art. A.5 ). 5 C.". to 6.7

    ol!me 8# /$. *resentation of E&idence *art C. 9. to"0.5 D.5 E.7/. 'eiht S!fficiency of E&idence

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - " -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    3/66

    Volume 4: Table of Contents

    /$. 1earsay +!le

    A. ;estimonial S &s. ?enni

    ). E@ce,tions to 1earsay

    ". Dyin Declarationa. +!le "305 Sec. 36

    %. *eo,le &s. La!inonc. *eo,le &s. Sa%iod. *eo,le &s. Salison

    2. Declaration Aainst $nteresta. +!le "305 Sec. 39%. *eo,le &s. Ma:!ric. *eo,le &s. ;oledod. F!entes &s. CA

    3. *ediree

    a. +!le "305 Sec.3B%. =ra&ador &s. Mamioc. *eo,le &s. Aleadod. ;ison &s. CA

    4. Family ;raditiona. +!le "305 Sec.40%. Ferrer &s. De $ncha!sti

    . Common +e,!tationa. +!le "305 Sec.4"

    %. Ferrer &s. De $ncha!stic. City of Manila &s. Del +osario

    8. +es =estaea. +!le "305 Sec.42%. *eo,le &s. L!nayanc. *eo,le &s. *!tiand. *eo,le &s. ;olentino

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 2 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    4/66

    6. Entries in the Co!rse of )!sinessa. +!le "305 Sec. 43%. *almer &s. 1offmanc. *hilamlife &s. Ca,ital Ass!rance Cor,.

    9. fficial +ecordsa. +!le "305 Sec.44%. Africa &s. Calte@c. *eo,le &s. Leonesd. Manalo &s. +o%les ;rans. Co.e. *eo,le &s. Ca%!anf. *eo,le &s. =a%riel

    B. Commercial Listsa. +!le "305 Sec.4

    %. State &s. L!nsfordc. *(C Shi,,in &s. CAd. Estrada &s. (o%le

    "0. Learned ;reatisesa. +!le "305 Sec. 48

    "". *rior ;estimonya. +!le "305 Sec.46%. ;an &s. CAc. hio &s. +o%erts

    /$$. ,inion +!le

    A. +!le "305 Secs. 49-0

    ). Cases#". Dila &s. Merced2. >S &s. ;rono3. *eo,le &s. Ado&iso4. *eo,le &s. minta. *eo,le &s. alle:o8. State &s. =ar&er6. >S &s. Stiefel9. Da!%ert &s. Merrell Dow *harmace!ticalsB. >S &s. )onds"0. *eo,le &s. Daniel

    XI. HEARSAY RULE

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 3 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    5/66

    A. Testimonial Knowledge

    1. Rule 130, Setion 3!

    Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge;hearsay excluded. A witness can testify only to those facts which heknows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from hisown perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

    Cases:

    People vs. Brioso

    37 SC! 33" #$%7$&

    'earsa( #Testimonial )no*led+e&

    ,acts:A,,ellants !an )rioso and Mariano ;aea are con&icted of the crime of m!rder forthe death of one Sil&ino Daria. ;he records of the case shows that on 23 Decem%er "B885 thes,o!ses Sil&ino Daria and S!sana ;!mali, were in their ho!se at %arrio ;ier5 ;ay!m A%ra.Cecilia )ernal5 a niece and neih%or of the s,o!ses5 was alarmed %y the %arin of the dosand when she ,ee,ed thro!h a crac in the wall of her ho!se she saw a,,ellants walin inthe direction of the ho!se of Sil&ino. )rioso was carryin a lon !n. )ernal witnesseda,,ellants ,oint a !n at the %am%oo wall of Darias ho!se. ;wo detonations followed and)ernal heard Daria moanin and his wife cryin for hel,. )ernal went to the ho!se andfo!nd the &ictim ,rostrate5 wo!nded5 and !na%le to s,ea. ;he widow5 howe&er5 riht after%ein shot5 r!shed to her h!s%ands side and told her that he was shot %y !an )rioso andMariano ;aea. Daria died one ho!r later. A few days later5 S!sana ;!mali, and Cecilia)ernal e@ec!ted affida&its ,ointin to the two acc!sed as the illers. $n this a,,eal5 a,,ellantsassins the followin errors# "7 the lower co!rt erred in relyin on the !ncorro%orated andcontradictory statement of ,rosec!tion witness Cecilia )ernalG and 27 the lower co!rt erredin disreardin the affida&it of Antonio Daria5 son of deceased5 clearin the acc!sed Mariano;aea5 which affida&it had %een identified in co!rt %y the fiscal %efore whom the same wase@ec!ted.

    -ssues:

    ". 'hether or not the co!rt erred in relyin on the testimony of Cecilia )ernal.2. 'hether the affida&it e@ec!ted %y Antonio Daria is hearsay.

    ulin+:;here is no discre,ancy on the testimony of )ernal on the material ,oints. Cecilia

    )ernal had no moti&e to im,!te falsely the crime aainst the acc!sed. ;he alleedinconsistencies in her testimony do not detract from the H,ositi&e and straihtforwardIidentification of the acc!sed as the ones who were seen at the scene of the crime and whoact!ally shot Daria. Moreo&er5 the testimony of )ernal is corro%orated %y the declaration ofthe &ictim himself5 who told his wife that it was !an )rioso and Mariano ;aea who shothim. ;his statement satisfies the re!irements of an ante-mortem statement. !ded %y thenat!re and e@tent of his wo!nds5 Sil&ino Daria m!st ha&e realied the serio!sness of his

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 4 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    6/66

    condition5 and it can %e safely inferred that he made the same !nder the conscio!sness of anim,endin death5 considerin that he died only an ho!r after %ein shot.

    'ith res,ect to the affida&it of Antonio Daria5 which was ,resented to corro%orate thetestimony of Mariano ;aea5 the same is re:ected as hearsay. ;he said affida&it was ne&er

    identified %y the s!,,osed affiant and there was no o,,ort!nity for the ,rosec!tion to cross-e@amine him. As stated in *eo,le &s. Mari!ina5 affida&its are enerally not ,re,ared %yaffiants themsel&es %!t %y another who !ses his own lan!ae in writin the affiantsstatements5 which may th!s %e either omitted or mis!nderstood %y the one writin them. Forthis reason5 and for f!rther reason that the ad&erse ,arty is de,ri&ed of the o,,ort!nity tocross-e@amine the affiants5 affida&its are enerally re:ected in a :!dicial ,roceedin ashearsay5 !nless the affiants themsel&es are ,lace on the witness stand to testify thereon.Antonio Darias affida&it5 therefore5 has no ,ro%ati&e &al!e.

    B(: Cristian '. Sorita

    People vs. Cusi

    $4 SC! %44 #$%"/&

    'earsa( #Testimonial )no*led+e&

    ,acts:+es,ondents Arcadio *!esca5 'alter A,a5 ose =!stilo5 Filomeno Macalinao5 +icardoDairo5 and Mano Montano were all chared with ro%%ery in %and with homicide. D!rinthe trial5 ,rosec!tion witness St. L!cio )aJo of the *olice Force of Dios5 Da&ao testifiedthat an e@tra:!dicial confession was made to him %y acc!sed Arcadio *!esca wherein thelatter admitted his ,artici,ation in the commission of the crime and re&ealed the name ofother ,ersons who cons,ired with him. *rosec!tin officer ased the witness )aJo tomention in co!rt the name of *!escas alleed co-cons,irators. Co!nsel for the acc!sed

    Macalinao5 =!stilo5 and Dairo o%:ected to this !,on the ro!nd that whate&er the witnesswo!ld say wo!ld %e hearsay as far as his clients were concerned. +es,ondent !de resol&edthe o%:ection allowin the witness to answer the !estion %!t witho!t mentionin the nameof those ,ersons who o%:ected. *rosec!tin officers motion for reconsideration ha&in %eendenied5 hence the ,resent ,etition for certiorari.

    -ssue:'hether the co!rt erred in not allowin the witness to mention the names of *!ecasco-cons,irators on the ro!nd of hearsay.

    ulin+: ;here is no !estion that hearsay e&idence5 if timely o%:ected to may not %eadmitted. )!t while the testimony of a witness reardin a statement made %y another

    ,erson5 if intended to esta%lish the tr!th of the facts asserted in the statement5 is clearlyhearsay e&idence5 it is otherwise if the ,!r,ose of ,lacin the statement in the record ismerely to esta%lish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of s!ch statement.

    $n the ,resent case5 the ,!r,ose of the ,rosec!tin officer as manifested %y him in thedisc!ssions %elow5 is nothin more than to esta%lish the fact that the acc!sed *!esca hadmentioned to St. )aJo the names of those who cons,ired with him to commit the offensechared5 witho!t claimin that *!escas statement or the answer to %e i&en %y St. )ano

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    7/66

    wo!ld %e com,etent and admissi%le e&idence to show that the ,ersons so named really andact!ally cons,ired with *!esca. For this limited ,!r,ose5 we %elie&e that the !estion,ro,o!nded to the witness was ,ro,er and the latter sho!ld ha&e %een allowed to answer it inf!ll5 with the !nderstandin5 howe&er5 that his answer shall not to %e taen as com,etente&idence to show that the ,ersons really and act!ally cons,ired with *!esca and later too

    ,art in the commission of the offense.

    B(: Cristian '. Sorita

    People vs. 0addi

    $71 SC! "4% #$%2%&

    'earsa( #Testimonial )no*led+e&

    ,acts:(erio =addi was chared with m!rder for the death of one A!!sto Es!erra. ;he,rosec!tions &ersion of the facts which was the &ersion %elie&ed %y the co!rt7 show that in

    the afternoon of Decem%er ""5 "B9"5 at San )artolome5 (o&aliches5 !eon City5 Ernesto=!man saw a,,ellant (erio =addi and the &ictim A!!sto Es!erra drinin in. $n themornin of the followin day5 a,,ellent told Ernesto =!man that he illed Es!erra andd!m,ed his %ody in a toilet located in the %acyard of =!man. =!man ad&ised a,,ellantto s!rrender to the ,olice. =!man went to the ,olice and re,orted what a,,ellant told him.n Decem%er "25 "B9"5 the a,,ellant was arrested. A,,ellant &ol!ntarily s!rrendered andtold the ,olice that he illed the &ictim and that he %!ried the %ody. ;he a,,ellant led the,olice to where the %ody is %!ried. *atrolman *atriarca noted the statements of =!man and=addi and too down the confession of a,,eallant. $n his defense5 =addi ,oints to =!manas the ,er,etrator of the crime and that he was only forced %y the latter to admit the crime.;he co!rt con&icted the a,,ellant of the crime chared. $n this a,,eal5 a,,ellant dis,!tes thetrial co!rts reliance on the testimonies of the ,rosec!tion witness =!man as a %asis for hiscon&ition. 1e claims that Ernesto =!mans testimony on =addis confession of the crime tohim cannot %e i&en credence for %ein hearsay.

    -ssue:'hether or not =!mans testimony is hearsay.

    ulin+:(o. ;his tri%!nal had ,re&io!sly declared that a confession constit!tes e&idence ofthe hih order since it is s!,orted %y the stron ,res!m,tion that no ,erson of normal mindwo!ld deli%erately and nowinly confess to crime !nless ,rom,ted %y tr!th and hisconscience. *roof that a ,erson confessed to the commission of a crime can %e ,resented ine&idence witho!t &iolatin the hearsay r!le which only ,rohi%its a witness from testifyin asto those facts which he merely learned from other ,ersons %!t not as to those facts which heHnows of his own nowledeGthat is5 which are deri&ed from his own ,erce,tion. 1ence5while the testimony of a witness reardin a statement made %y another ,erson5 if intended toesta%lish the tr!th of the facts asserted in the statement5 is clearly hearsay e&idence5 it isotherwise if the ,!r,ose of ,lacin the statement in the record is merely to esta%lish the factthat the statement was made or the tenor of s!ch statement.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 8 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    8/66

    1ere5 when =!man testified that the a,,ellant5 who ,ro%a%ly was %othered %y hisconscience5 admitted the illin to him5 there was no &iolation of the hearsay r!le as =!manwas testifyin to a fact which he nows of his own ,ersonal nowledeG that is5 he wastestifyin to the fact that the a,,ellant told him that he sta%%ed A!!sto Es!erra and not tothe tr!th of the a,,ellants statement.

    $n this case5 it sho!ld also %e noted that the a,,ellant was not con&icted %ased onlyon the ,rosec!tion witness testimony %!t also on the ,resence of other circ!mstantiale&idence ,ro&ed.7

    B(: Cristian '. Sorita

    Estrada vs. esierto

    3/" SC! $12 #11$&

    'earsa( #Testimonial )no*led+e&

    ,acts: ;his is a Motion for +econsideration of the Co!rts resol!tion in =+. (o. "486"0-"and mni%!s Motion in =+. "48639 of the Co!rts Decision of March 25 200".

    $n =.+. (o. "486395 ,etitioner raises and ar!es the followin iss!es#

    ". 'hether ,etitioner resined or sho!ld %e considered resined as of an!ry 205200"G

    2. 'hether the Anaara Diary is inadmissi%le for %ein &iolati&e of the followinr!les on e&idence# hearsay5 %est e&idence5 a!thentication5 admissions5 and resinter alios actaG

    3. 'hether reliance on news,a,er acco!nts is &iolati&e of the hearsay r!le.

    $t is !red that the !se of the Anara Diary to determine the state of mind of the,etitioner on the iss!e of his resination &iolates the r!le aainst the admission of hearsayr!le.

    ulin+: 'e are !n,ers!aded. ;o %ein with5 the Anara Diary is not an o!t of co!rtstatement. ;he Anara Diary is ,art of the ,leadins in the cases at %ar. E&en ass!minar!endo that the Anara Diary was an o!t of co!rt statement5 still its !se is not co&ered %ythe hearsay r!le. Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or inpart, on the competency and reliability of some persons other than the witness by whom it is

    sought to produce it. ;here are three reasons for e@cl!din hearsay e&idence# "7 a%sence ofcross-e@aminationG 27 a%sence of demeanor e&idence5 and 37 a%sence of oath. (ot allhearsay e&idence5 howe&er5 is inadmissi%le as e&idence. &er the years5 a h!e %ody ofhearsay e&idence has %een admitted %y co!rts d!e to their rele&ance5 tr!stworthiness andnecessity. A com,lete analysis of any hearsay ,ro%lem re!ires that we f!rther determinewhether the hearsay e&idence is one e@em,ted from the r!les of e@cl!sion. A morecircumspect examination of our rules of exclusion will show that they do not cover

    admissions of a party and the Angara Diary belongs to this class. Section 26 of ule !"#

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 6 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    9/66

    provides that $the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given

    in evidence against him.% &t has long been settled that these admissions are admissible even

    if they are hearsay.

    ;hat Anara Diary contains direct statements of ,etitioners which can %e cateoried

    as admissions of a ,arty# his ,ro,osal for a sna, ,residential election where he wo!ld not %ea candidateG his statement that he only wanted the fi&e-day ,eriod ,romised %y chief of StaffAnelo +eyesG his statements that he wo!ld lea&e %y Monday if the second en&elo,e wo!ld%e o,ened %y Monday and H,aod na *aod na ao. Ayoo na5 masyado nan masait.*aod na ao sa red ta,e5 %!rea!cracy5 intria.I

    $t is howe&er ar!ed that the Anara Diary is not the Diary of ,etitioner5 hence5 non-%indin on him. ;he ar!ment o&erloos the doctrine of ado,ti&e admission. An ado,ti&eadmission is a ,artys reaction to a statement or action %y another ,erson when it isreasona%le to treat the ,artys reaction as an admission of somethin stated or im,lied %y theother ,erson. ;he %asis for admissi%ility of admissions made &icario!sly is that arisin from

    the ratification or ado,tion %y the ,arty of the statement which the other ,erson had made. $nthe Anara Diary5 the o,tions of the ,etitioner started to dwindle when the armed forceswithdrew its s!,,ort from him as ,resident and commander-in-chief. ;h!s5 e@ec!ti&eSecretary Anara had to as Senate *resident *imentel to ad&ise ,etitioner to consider theo,tion of Kdinified e@it or resination.I *etitioner did not o%:ect to the s!ested o,tion %!tsim,ly said he co!ld ne&er lea&e the co!ntry. *etitioners silence on this and other relateds!estions can %e taen as an admission %y him.

    *etitioner also contends that the !se of Anara Diary aainst him &iolated the r!le onres inter alios acta. ;he r!le is e@,ressed in section 29 of +!le "30 of the +!les of Co!rt5&i# H;he rihts of a ,arty cannot %e ,re:!diced %y an act5 declaration or omission of another5e@ce,t as hereinafter ,ro&ided.I Aain5 ,etition errs in his contention. ;he res inter aliosacta r!le has se&eral e@ce,tions. ne of them is ,ro&ided in Section 2B of +!le "30 withres,ect to admissions %y a co-,artner or aent. E@ec!ti&e Secretary Anara as s!ch was analter eo of the ,etitioner. >nder o!r r!les of e&idence5 admissions of an aent SecretaryAnara7 are %indin on the ,rinci,al ,etitioner7.

    Moreo&er the %an on hearsay e&idence does not co&er independently relevantstatements. ;hese are statements which are rele&ant inde,endently of whether they are tr!eor not. ;hey %elon to two 27 classes# "7 those statements which are the &ery facts in iss!e5and 27 those statements which are circ!mstantial e&idence of the facts in iss!e. ;he secondclass incl!de the followin#

    a. Statements of a ,erson showin his state of mind5 that is his mentalcondition5 nowlede %elief5 intention5 ill will and other emotionsG@ @ @

    %. statements of a ,erson from which an inference may %e made as to the stateof mind of another5 that is5 the nowlede5 %elief5 moti&e5 ood or %ad faith5etc. o the latterG

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 9 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    10/66

    As afore disc!ssed5 the Anara Diary contains statements of the ,etitioner whichreflects his state of mind and are circ!mstantial e&idence of his intent to resin. $t alsocontains statements of Secretary Anara from which we can reasona%ly ded!ce ,etitionersintent to resin. ;hey are admissi%le and they are not co&ered %y the r!le on hearsay.

    B(: Cristian '. Sorita

    5.S. vs. 6enni

    4% ,. Supp. 4"4 #$%21&

    'earsa( #Testimonial )no*led+e&

    ,acts: 'hile cond!ctin a search of the ,remises of the defendant5 +!%y 1!m,hrey5,!rs!ant to a lawf!l search warrant5 which a!thoried a search for e&idence of %oomainacti&ity5 o&ernment aents answered the tele,hone se&eral times. ;he !nnown callersstated directions for the ,lacin of %ets on &ario!s s,ortin e&ents. ;he o&ernment ,ro,osesto introd!ce this e&idence to show that the callers %elie&ed that the ,remises were !sed in%ettin o,erations. ;he e@istence of s!ch %elief tends to ,ro&e that they were. ;hedefendants o%:ect on the ro!nd of hearsay.

    -ssue:'hether the statements o&erheard in the tele,hone call are inadmissi%le in e&idenceon the ro!nd of hearsay.

    ulin+:;he !tterances of !nnown callers were non-asserti&e &er%al cond!cts offered asrele&ant to s!,,ort inferences that %ets co!ld %e ,laced at ,remises %ein tele,honed5 andth!s5 as im,lied assertions5 !tterances were not within the o,eration of the hearsay r!le.;he!tterances of the a%sent declarants are not offered for the tr!th of the words5 and the merefact that the words were !ttered has no rele&ance in itself. +ather they are offered to showthe declarants %elief in a fact so!ht to %e ,ro&ed. ;he e&idence was not offered for anytr!th stated in it %!t for the tr!th of some other ,ro,osition inferred from it.

    >nder the federal r!les of e&idence5 im,lied assertions are not hearsay. ;wo ,rinci,alar!ments were !s!ally e@,ressed for remo&in im,lied assertions from the sco,e of thehearsay r!le# First5 when a ,erson acts in a way consistent with a %elief %!t witho!t intendin%y his act to comm!nicate that %elief5 one of the ,rinci,al reasons for the hearsay r!le toe@cl!de declarations whose &eracity cannot %e tested %y cross-e@amination does not a,,lyG%eca!se the declarants sincerity is not then in&ol&ed. $n the second ,lace5 the !nderlyin%elief is in some cases self-&erifyin# H;here is fre!ently a !arantee of the tr!stworthinessof the inference to %e drawn . . . %eca!se his actions on the correctness of his %elief5 i.e. his

    actions s,ea lo!der than words.I

    B(: Cristian '. Sorita

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - B -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    11/66

    ". E#e$tions to Hea%sa& Rule

    1. '&ing 'ela%ation

    (a) Rule 130, Section 37

    Sec. 3. Dying declaration. !he declaration of a dying person,made under the consciousness of an impending death, may "ereceived in any case wherein his death is the su"#ect of in$uiry, asevidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

    Cases:

    People vs. a8uinon

    $3/ SC! %$ #$%2/&(in+ eclaration

    ,acts:Acc!sed =reorio La!inon was chared with the crime of m!rder in the CF$ ofDa&ao del S!r for the illin of *a%lo +emonde. ;he facts show that on the niht of(o&em%er "35 "B625 in )arrio Cli%5 1aonoy5 Da&ao Del S!r5 )arrio Ca,tain Samama )!atheard !nshots comin from the %an of a ri&er near his ho!se. Moments later5 Leocario)!at5 Samamas %rother arri&ed and told the latter that a man was sho!tin for hel, at the%an of the ri&er. Samama instr!cted Leocario to call the %arrio co!ncilman. Samama,roceeded to the ,lace where the !nidentified man was. Leocario and the %arrio co!ncilmanalso arri&ed there. Samama fo!nd the man lyin face down on the sand and with his two

    hands tied on his %ac. 'hen ased who he was5 the man answered that he is *a%lo+emonde. Samama )!at too the ante-mortem statement of *a%lo +emonde. Samama ased+emonde who shot him and the latter re,lied that it was =reorio La!inon. 1e also ased*a%lo +emonde whether he wo!ld s!r&i&e and to which the &ictim answered H$ dont now.I)arrio ca,tain Samama )!at also informed ice Mayor )iran the shootin of +emonde.)iran went to the scene of the incident and ased +emonde who shot him to which the latteranswered that he was shot %y =reorio La!inon. +emonde was s!%se!ently %ro!ht to thehos,ital %!t died on (o&em%er "85 "B62 %eca!se of %!llet wo!nds.

    ;he acc!sed denied the illin and raised the defense that it was a certain (oliCa%ardo who illed +emonde. As a mem%er of the

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    12/66

    ulin+: ;he dyin declaration of +emonde is not admissi%le as an ante-mortem declarationsince the deceased was in do!%t as to whether he wo!ld die or not. +emem%er that when thedeceased was ased when he wo!ld %e a%le to s!r&i&e5 the deceased re,lied5 H$ dont now.I7;he declaration fails to show that the deceased %elie&ed himself in e@tremis5 Hat the ,oint ofdeath when ho,e of reco&ery is e@tinct5I which is the sole %asis for admittin this ind of

    declarations as an e@ce,tion to the hearsay r!le.

    $t may %e admitted howe&er5 as ,art of the res estae since the statement was madeimmediately after the incident and deceased *a%lo +emonde had no s!fficient timeto concoct a story.

    ;he e&idence ,resented howe&er shows that the acc!sed is !ilty %eyond reasona%ledo!%t of the crime of m!rder !alified %y treachery.

    B(: Cristian '. Sorita

    People vs. Sabio

    $1 SC! $2 #$%2$&

    (in+ eclaration #E9ception to 'earsa(&

    ,acts:Catalino Es,ina5 90 years old and owner of asari'sari store in Ce%!5 was fo!nd on thesecond floor of his home5 wo!nded on the forehead5 from which in:!ry he died 3 days later.*rosec!tion witness es!sa )irondo testified that aro!nd am that day5 as she was ,re,arinto o to the seashore5 she heard cries for hel, comin from Es,inas ho!se. 'hen she looedo!tside her window5 she saw the acc!sed5 +od!lfo Sa%io nicnamed H*a,!I7 comin o!t ofthe door of the store of Es,inas ho!se. Another witness5 Camilo Semilla5 randne,hew ofthe &ictim5 who li&ed at the latter since childhood5 testified that he left the &ictims home ataro!nd 4am to o fishin. Sometime later5 he o%ser&ed Sa%io from 8 meters away5 r!nnin,ast him and towards his Sa%ios7 home. Semilla o%ser&ed that Sa%io had his hands t!cedinside his shirt while r!nnin. Min!tes later5 a certain Eno Calledo arri&ed and told Semillato o home %eca!se his rand-!ncle was cryin for hel,. 'hen Semilla arri&ed5 he sawEs,ina lyin wo!nded !,stairs and the latter was only a%le to s,ea when his head wasraised. Semilla also o%ser&ed that the tin can called a H%arrioI7 containin the cash sales ofthe store amo!ntin to aro!nd 9 ,esos was lyin em,ty on the floor.

    Es,ina ased Semilla to call for the ,olice and *atrolmen F!entes and )!rosres,onded. >,on arri&al5 F!entes ased Es,ina !estions a%o!t his wo!ndin and wrote theanswers on torn calendar ,ae. Accordin to F!entes5 in res,onse to his !estions5 Es,inaidentified *a,! Sa%io as his assailant5 the latter ha&in attaced him after demandin money.F!entes then had Es,ina th!m%mar this Hante-mortem statementI with his own %lood5 there%ein no in a&aila%le. F!entes and )!ros sined as witnesses. Es,ina was then %ro!ht tothe hos,ital where he died 3 days later d!e to his head wo!nds.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - "" -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    13/66

    $n his defense5 Sa%io testified that at the time of the s!,,osed ro%%ery and homicide5he was aslee, at home. Sa%io also ,resented a certain acinto Mende who testified that hesle,t at the home of the acc!sed the niht %efore and corro%orated Sa%ios ,resence therein.

    ;he +;C fo!nd Sa%io !ilty of +o%%ery with 1omicide and sentenced him to death.

    -ssues:

    ". 'hether or not the +;C correctly con&icted Sa%io of ro%%ery with homicide.2. 'hether or not the Ante-mortem Statement of Es,ina is admissi%le as e&idenceaainst Sa%io

    ulin+:

    ". ;he S!,reme Co!rt r!led that only the crime of homicide had %een committed andsentenced him to "2-20 years of im,risonment. ;he e&idence in s!,,ort of ro%%ery iscirc!mstantial at %est and does not esta%lish %eyond a reasona%le do!%t that Sa%io had carriedaway the money contained in the tin can. ;he cons!mmation of ro%%ery cannot %e ,res!med

    from the circ!mstance that the acc!sed was seen r!nnin with his hands inside his shirt orthat the tin can alleedly contained 9 ,esos or that the ho!se was in disarray.

    (or can the dyin declaration %e admitted to esta%lish the ro%%ery ,art of whichread# H# 'ho slashed and ro%%ed yo! A# +od!lfo Sa%ioI7. ;he admission of dyindeclarations has always %een strictly limited to criminal ,rosec!tions for homicide or m!rder5as e&idence of the ca!se and s!rro!ndin circ!mstances of death.

    2. ;he Ante-mortem Statement is admissi%le &ers!s Sa%io. ;he ar!ments of thedefense are !na&ailin. ;hat the &ictim was !nder the conscio!sness of im,endin death isstrenthened %y the followin circ!mstances# the serio!sness of in:!ry to the &ictimsforehead5 the ,rof!se %leedin5 the ina%ility to s,ea !nless his head was raised5 thes,ontaneo!s answers to F!entes !estions5 his s!%se!ent demise from the wo!nds. ;he factthat death did not ens!e !ntil 3 days later does not alter its ,ro%ati&e force since it is not anindis,ensa%le re!irement that the declarant e@,ire immediately after. $t is the %elief inim,endin death and not the ra,id s!ccession of death in ,oint of fact5 that renders the dyindeclaration admissi%le.

    F!rther5 the fact that the &ictim told his randne,hew to fetch the ,olice does not neati&e the&ictims feelin of ho,elessness of reco&ery. +ather5 it em,hasies the realiation that he hadlittle time to disclose his assailant to the a!thorities.

    B(: ose C. Salvosa

    People vs. Salison; r.

    /3 SC! 7/2 #$%%"&

    (in+ eclaration #E9ception to 'earsa(&

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - "2 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    14/66

    ,acts:A,,ellant +ey Salison5 r. was con&icted %y the +;C of Da&ao City for the m!rder ofone +olando almoria. 'itness Maria Ayola saw Salison a,,roach almoria5 ,!t his armaro!nd his sho!lder5 %rin him %ehind a neih%ors ho!se and %o@ed the latter in thea%domen. A fiht then ens!ed5 d!rin which5 3 other acc!sed Andiente5 Dinaran andFediles7 a,,eared and :oined the fiht aainst almoria. Another witness Emilia Fernande

    tried to se,arate the ,arties %!t to no a&ail. ;he 4 assailants then ,iced !, ,ieces of woodand %ean to hit almoria with them at the %ac of his na,e. almoria then ran towards hisho!se which was a few meters away and hid inside. ;he 4 assailants %ean hittin the wallsand windows of his ho!se5 sho!tin for him to come o!t %!t almoria ref!sed.

    After Salison and his 3 cohorts left5 almoria was accom,anied %y his ,arents to thehome of thepuro( leader5 *atricia Alcose%a. At this ,oint5 almoria %ean to feel diy and,ain from his head5 which was %leedin at the time. 1e ased Alcose%a to tae down hisdeclaration reardin the incident5 e@,lainin that if he sho!ld die and no witness wo!ldtestify5 his written declaration co!ld %e !tilied as e&idence. almoria then related toAlcose%a the details of the attac5 identifyin his assailants. ;he declaration was written in

    )ebuano. 1e sined the same at the end and a&e it to his mother. almoria died of hiswo!nds 3 days later.

    -ssue: 'hether or not the written declaration of almoria is admissi%le as e&idence aainstSalison.

    ulin+: ;he declaration is admissi%le. ;he :!dment of the +;C is affirmed.

    Altho!h the declaration is in )ebuanodialect and is !naccom,anied %y an Enlishor *ilipinotranslation5 the records do not disclose that the defense offered any o%:ection tothe admission of s!ch declaration at trial. ;h!s5 any s!ch infirmity is wai&ed. Altho!h Sec.33 of +!le "32 of the +e&ised +!les of Co!rt now ,rohi%its the admission of s!ch doc!mentin an !nofficial lan!ae5 the Co!rt %elie&es that in the interest of :!stice5 s!ch in:!nctionsho!ld not %e literally a,,lied here es,ecially since no o%:ection was made %y the a,,ellant.Also5 it a,,ears that the concerned ,arties and :!dicial a!thorities were s!fficiently familiarwith the dialect in which it was written.

    F!rthermore5 a,,ellants contention that the declaration was not made !nder theconscio!sness of im,endin death holds no water. At the time of the declaration5 almoriawas !nder reat ,ain and he e@,ressed %elief in his imminent death and the ho,e that hisdeclaration co!ld %e !sed as e&idence reardin the circ!mstances thereof. A ,erson wo!ldnot say so if he %elie&es he wo!ld %e a%le to testify aainst his assailants.

    At any e&ent5 ass!min the declaration is not admissi%le as a dyin declaration5 it isstill admissi%le as ,art of the res gestae5 since it was made shortly after the startlinocc!rrence and !nder the circ!mstances5 the acc!sed had no o,,ort!nity to contri&e.

    B(: ose C. Salvosa

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - "3 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    15/66

    (. 'ela%ation Against Inte%est

    (a) Rule 130, Section 38

    Sec. 3%. Declaration against interest. !he declaration made "ya person deceased, or una"le to testify, against the interest of thedeclarant, if the fact is asserted in the declaration was at the time itwas made so far contrary to declarant&s own interest, that a reasona"leman in his position would not have made the declaration unless he"elieved it to "e true, may "e received in evidence against himself orhis successors in interest and against third persons.

    Cases:

    People vs.

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    16/66

    %itterly resented her infidelity5 her fail!re to &isit him in ,rison and her nelect of theirchildren are other circ!mstances confirmatory of their married stat!s.

    B(: ose C. Salvosa

    People vs. Toledo

    /$ P'- 2/ #$%2&

    eclaration !+ainst -nterest #E9ception to 'earsa(&

    ,acts:Sisenado 1olado and Filomeno Morales had a dis,!te o&er ,arcels of land located in*inamalayan5 Mindoro. ne mornin5 the 2 men ha,,ened to me and their ar!ment wasrenewed. ;hey areed to enae in a %olo d!el which res!lted in the death of Morales.1olado5 howe&er5 was serio!sly wo!nded and fled to the neih%orin ho!se of DalmacioManlisic. 1e then ,roceeded to the m!nici,al %!ildin where he made a sworn statement%efore the m!nici,al ,resident that only there were the only 2 ,ersons who fo!ht. A month

    later5 1olado died of his wo!nds.

    ;he +ueridaof Morales5 !stina illan!e&a5 testified howe&er that a,,ellant E!enio;oledo5 one of 1olados worers had inter&ened in the fiht and dealt a mortal %low toMorales. 1er testimony was ,artially corro%orated %y a certain !stina Lla&e. ;oledo deniedha&in ,artici,ated in the fiht and stated that his only in&ol&ement was ha&in met 1oladoafter the fiht and hel,in him et to the Manlisic residence. ;oledos co!nsel ,resentedE@hi%it "5 the affida&it of 1olado made at the m!nici,al %!ildin after the fiht. ;hisE@hi%it howe&er was r!led to %e hearsay e&idence and hence5 inadmissi%le.

    ;oledo was con&icted of homicide %y the trial co!rt5 which is the s!%:ect of thisa,,eal. ;he co!nsel of ;oledo contends that E@hi%it " sho!ld ha&e %een admitted intoe&idence.

    -ssue:'hether or not the affida&it of the deceased 1olado is admissi%le as e&idence.

    ulin+: ;he con&iction is re&ersed and ;oledo ac!itted. ;he trial co!rt erred in notadmittin E@hi%it " as a statement of fact aainst ,enal interest and had it %een recei&ed5 itsinfl!ence wo!ld ha&e %een felt %y the trial co!rt.

    1earsay e&idence is enerally e@cl!ded %y the co!rts. ne of the reconied e@ce,tions has%een the declarations of third ,arties contrary to their ,ec!niary or ,ro,rietary interest.;raditionally5 this e@ce,tion has %een made only to a,,ly to admissions aainst a ,ec!niaryor ,ro,rietary interest %!t not a ,enal interest. ;he Co!rt howe&er fails to see why a man will%e ,res!med to tell the tr!th in the former instances and not the latter. ;o limit the e@ce,tionto statements aainst ,ec!niary interests and not criminal lia%ility cannot %e :!stified onro!nds of ,!%lic ,olicy.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - " -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    17/66

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    18/66

    $t is tr!e that declarations aainst interest are an e@ce,tion to the hearsay r!le. ;here are 3essential re!isites for this e@ce,tion# a7 that the declarant m!st not %e a%le to testifyG %7that the declaration m!st concern a matter of fact conia%le %y the declarantG c7 that thecirc!mstances render it im,ro%a%le that a moti&e to falsify e@isted.

    $n this case5 the alleed declaration aainst interest attri%!ted to ?oilo is inadmissi%le ine&idence as an e@ce,tion to hearsay. ;he holdin of the Co!rt in *eo,le &s. ;oledo isina,,lica%le here. For all its attem,ts to demonstrate the ar%itrariness %ehind the traditionalre:ection of declarations aainst ,enal interest5 the ;oledo case is remara%ly different fromthe instant case. First5 ?oilo is the co!sin of the acc!sed and Felicisimo is his !ncle. ;healleed confession is ,atently !ntr!stworthy %eca!se these two ha&e e&ery moti&e to,re&aricate. Second5 the admission of s!ch a statement wo!ld %e shocin to the sense of:!stice. Ass!min that Ale:andro is ac!itted and ?oilo s!%se!ently ca,t!red and ,!t totrial5 there is nothin to ,re&ent the latter from re,!diatin the statement. Leally5 ?oilocannot %e %o!nd to s!ch a statement. ;hird and most im,ortantly5 it has not %eendemonstrated that ?oilo is !na%le to testify. ;here is no showin that he is either dead5

    mentally inca,acitated or ,hysically incom,etent. 1is mere a%sence from the :!risdictiondoes not mae him i,so facto !na&aila%le !nder this +!le. ;he records show that the defensedid not e@ert any serio!s effort to ,rod!ce ?oilo as a witness. $ndeed5 an innocent declaration%y the real c!l,rit sho!ld %e admissi%le as e&idence. )!t this can %e o,en to a%!se as whenthe e@tra:!dicial statement is not e&en a!thenticated5 there%y increasin the ,ro%a%ility of itsfa%rication. For this case5 at least5 the ,r!dent co!rse is its e@cl!sion.

    B(: ose C. Salvosa

    3. )edig%ee

    (a) Rule 130, Section 39

    Sec. 3'. Act or declaration about pedigree. !he act ordeclaration of a person deceased, or una"le to testify, in respect to thepedigree of another person related to him "y "irth or marriage, may "ereceived in evidence where it occurred "efore the controversy, and therelationship "etween the two persons is shown "y evidence other thansuch act or declaration. !he word (pedigree( includes relationship,family genealogy, "irth, marriage, death, the dates when and theplaces where these fast occurred, and the names of the relatives. )tem"races also facts of family history intimately connected withpedigree.

    Cases:

    0ravador v.

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    19/66

    Pedi+ree

    ,acts: ;he ,etitioner *edro =ra&ador was the ,rinci,al of the Sta. Catalina ElementarySchool in Sta. Catalina5 (eros riental on A!!st "5 "B84 when he was ad&ised %y theS!,erintendent of Schools Anel Salaar5 r.5 thro!h ;eod!lfo Dayao5 of his se,aration

    from the ser&ice on the ro!nd that he had reached the com,!lsory retirement ae of 8. ;helatters findins were %ased on ,re-war records which incl!ded =ra&adors Em,loyees+ecord Card that stated that he was %orn on (o&em%er 285 "9B6 1e was th!s 88 years5 9months and 22 days old on record7.

    $n a letter dated A!!st 3"5 "B845 the ,etitioner ,rotested his forced retirement on thero!nd that the date of his %irth is not (o&em%er 285 "9B6 %!t Decem%er ""5 "B0". Attachedto this letter was the affida&it of Laaro )ando!illo and *edro Sienes who were theirneih%ors e&en d!rin the lifetime of the ,arents of =ra&ador. ;hey stated that =ra&adorstr!e %irth date is Decem%er ""5 "B0".

    ;he Co!rt of First $nstance of (eros riental r!led that =ra&ador was %orn on

    Decem%er ""5 "B0" and ordered his reinstatement5 %ac salaries and damaes amo!ntin to*25400. +es,ondent E!ti!io Mamio5 the District S!,er&isor5 a,,ealed directly to theS!,reme Co!rt. Mamio contends that it was error on the ,art of the trial co!rt to rely solelyon ,ost-war records to determine ,etitioners tr!e date of %irth. Accordin to res,ondent5these records were only man!fact!red since it was %elie&ed that the oriinal ,re-war recordshad %een lost or destroyed.

    -ssue: 'hether or not the trial co!rt correctly relied on ,ost-war records.

    ulin+: Oes.;he trial co!rt committed no error in relyin on ,ost-war records that reflected=ra&adors %irth date as Decem%er ""5 "B0".

    Altho!h a ,erson can ha&e no ,ersonal nowlede of the date of his %irth5 he maytestify as to his ae as he learned it from his ,arents and relati&es and his testimony in s!chcase is an assertion of a family tradition. $n his a,,lication for %ac ,ay filed with theDe,artment of Finance and when he ased the =S$S and the Ci&il Ser&ice Commission tocorrect the date of his %irth5 he re,eatedly asserted that his %irthday was on Decem%er ""5"B0".

    $n the second ,lace5 the im,ort of the declaration of ,etitioners %rother5 contained ina &erified ,leadin in a cadastral s!r&ey way %ac in "B245 to the effect that the ,etitionerwas then 23 years old5 can not %e inored. Made ante litem motam%y a deceased relati&e5this statement is at once a declaration reardin ,ediree within the intendment and meaninof section 33 now section 3B7 of +!le "30 of the +!les of Co!rt.

    ;h!s5 Decem%er ""5 "B0" is esta%lished as the date of %irth of the ,etitioner not only%y e&idence of family tradition %!t also %y the declaration ante litem motam of a deceasedrelati&e.

    B(: 0iancarlo

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    20/66

    People v. !le+ado

    1$ SC! 37 #$%%$&

    Pedi+ree

    ,acts: At a%o!t 8#00 ,.m. on A,ril "45 "B99 at the Freedom S!are inside the ,!%lic maretof San Carlos City5 (eros ccidental5 the a,,ellant Alfredo Aleado5 a "60-,o!nd5 3 yearold maret watchman too the &ictim Cristina Dean to the second floor of the ,!%lic maret%!ildin that was deserted. n the second floor5 the a,,ellant ordered Cristina to mast!r%atehim then forci%ly ,!shed her to the floor. 1e lay on to, of her and inserted his ,enis %!t itdid not ,enetrate f!lly %efore he e:ac!lated. ;he a,,ellant a&e her *2.00 and then left.Fearin that he miht ill her5 the &ictim told no one.

    n A,ril 205 "B995 aro!nd 6#00 ,.m.5 Aleado aain ased Cristina to o to secondfloor of the same maret ,lace. 'hen she ref!sed5 the a,,ellant sho&ed her to the stairs intothe !,,er floor near the ci&ic center. 'hen she resisted to tae off her shorts and ,anty5 the

    a,,ellant threatened to ill her. 1e then inserted his ,enis into the irls &aina thate&ent!ally %led. ;he a,,ellant a&e her *2.00 and then left. *atrolwoman E&aneline Alfarosaw a,,ellant comin down the stairs and then the &ictim followed a min!te later. She was,ale with %lood flowin from her thih and les.

    ;he acc!sed-a,,ellant was chared and con&icted of two co!nts of stat!tory ra,e %ythe +eional ;rial Co!rt of San Carlos City and was sentenced to +ecl!sion *er,et!a. ne ofthe errors assined %y Aleado is that the trial co!rt erred in con&ictin him of stat!tory ra,eas defined !nder Article 33 of the +e&ised *enal Code des,ite the ,rosec!tion fail!re to,ro&e with certainty the act!al ae of the offended ,arty.

    -ssue: 'hether or not the ae of the offended ,arty was d!ly ,ro&en to %e %elow twel&eyears old in order for the +*C ,ro&ision on stat!tory ra,e to a,,ly.

    'eld: Oes.;he fact that the &ictim was %elow twel&e years old at the time of the ra,e wasd!ly ,ro&ed.

    ;he testimonies of the ,rosec!tion witnesses5 the offended ,arty herself and hermaternal randfather5 Cornelio illarosa5 as to the fact that the &ictim was %orn onSe,tem%er 5 "B68 do not constit!te hearsay e&idence as claimed %y the acc!sed-a,,ellant%!t rather fall !nder the e@ce,tions to the hearsay r!le as ,ro&ided !nder Section 3B and 40of +!le "30 of the +e&ised +!les on E&idence.

    ;he word H,edireeI !nder Section 3B incl!des relationshi,. Family5 enealoy5%irth5 marriae5 death5 the dates when and ,laces where these facts occ!rred and the name ofthe relati&es. ;he said ,ro&ision contains three re!isites for its admissi%ility5 namely5 "7that there is contro&ersy in res,ect to the ,ediree of any mem%er of the familyG 27 that there,!tation or tradition of the ,ediree of the ,erson concerned e@isted ,re&io!s to thecontro&ersyG and 37 that the witness testifyin to the re,!tation or tradition m!st %e amem%er of the family of the said ,erson. All these ,reconditions are o%tainin in the case at

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - "B -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    21/66

    %ar considerin that the date of %irth of the ra,e &ictim is ,!t in iss!eG that the declaration ofthe &ictims randfather relatin to tradition e@isted lon %efore the ra,e case was filedG andthat the witness testifyin to the said tradition is the maternal randfather of the ra,e &ictim.

    Moreo&er5 the offended ,arty herself cateorically stated in o,en co!rt that she was

    %orn on Se,tem%er 5 "B68. Altho!h a ,erson can ha&e no ,ersonal nowlede of the dateof his %irth5 he may testify as to his ae as he learned it from his ,arents and relati&es and histestimony in s!ch case is an assertion of a family tradition.

    $nasm!ch as the acc!sed-a,,ellant failed to ,resent contrary e&idence to dis,!te the,rosec!tions claim that the &ictim was %elow twel&e years old at the time of the ra,es !nderconsideration5 we affirm the trial co!rts findin that the &ictim in these ra,e cases was !ndertwel&e years old.

    B(: 0iancarlo ,on the death of his wife5 Martin e@ec!ted an Affida&it of E@tra:!dicial Settlementad:!dicatin to himself5 alleedly as sole heir5 a ,arcel of land with a ho!se and a,artmentthereon located at San Francisco del Monte5 !eon City. n an!ary 25 "B995 Martin soldthe lot to herein ,ri&ate res,ondent ;eodora Domino.

    Martin =!errero died on cto%er "B99. S!%se!ently5 ,etitioners filed for an actionfor recon&eyance claimin that they ha&e a riht to inherit one half of the ,ro,erty. D!rinthe ,re-trial hearin5 Coraon ;ison was ,resented as the lone witness and she offered thefollowin e&idence to ,ro&e their filiation to their father and their a!nt# %a,tismal certificates5death certificates5 and certificates of destroyed records of %irths of ;eodora Deoller andtheir father 1ermoenes Deoller5 a family ,ict!re5 affida&its of *a%lo erosa and MelitonSit:ar5 marriae certificates of Martin and ;eodora5 amon other doc!ments shown. ;isonalso testified as to her filiation ;edorora. *ri&ate res,ondents filed a Dem!rrer to E&idenceon the ro!nd that ,etitioners failed to ,ro&e their leitimate filiation !nder Article "62 of theFamily Code. ;he ;rial Co!rt ranted the dem!rrer and dismissed the com,laint. ;he CAaffirmed the ;C r!lin.

    -ssue: 'hether or not ,etitioners failed to ,ro&e to esta%lish their leitimacy and filiation tothe deceased ;eodora =!errero with e&idence merely consistin of se&eral doc!ments andthe testimony of Coraon ;ison.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 20 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    22/66

    'eld: Oes.;hey ha&e ,ro&ed their filiation. ;C and CA r!lin are re&ersed and set aside.

    $t is not de%ata%le that the doc!mentary e&idence add!ced %y ,etitioners5 taense,arately and inde,endently of each other5 are not per ses!fficient ,roof of leitimacy nore&en of ,ediree. 1owe&er5 %oth co!rts failed to reconie the ,res!m,tion of leitimacy.

    ;here is no ,res!m,tion more firmly esta%lished and fo!nded on so!nder morality andreason than the ,res!m,tion that children %orn in wedloc are leitimate. And well settled isthe r!le that the iss!e of leitimacy cannot %e attaced collaterally as in an action forrecon&eyance. ;he ,res!m,tion conse!ently contin!es to o,erate in fa&or of ,etitioners.

    ;he ,rimary ,roof to %e considered in ascertainin the relationshi, %etween the,arties is the testimony of Coraon Deoller ;ison to the effect that ;eodora Deoller=!errero in her lifetime5 or sometime in "B485 cateorically declared that the former is;eodoras niece. S!ch a statement is considered a declaration a%o!t ,ediree which isadmissi%le5 as an e@ce,tion to the hearsay r!le !nder Section 3B5 +!le "30 of the +!les ofCo!rt5 s!%:ect to the followin conditions# "7 that the declarant is dead or !na%le to testifyG

    27 that the declarant %e related to the ,erson whose ,ediree is s!%:ect to in!iryG 37 thats!ch relationshi, %e shown %y e&idence other than the declarationG and 47 that thedeclaration %e made ante litem moam, that is5 not only %efore the commencement of the s!itin&ol&in the s!%:ect matter of the declaration5 %!t %efore any contro&ersy has arisen thereon.

    ;here is no dis,!te as the first5 second and fo!rth re!irements. As to the thirdre!irement5 where the ,arty claimin sees reco&ery aainst a relati&e common to %othclaimant and declarant not from the declarant himself or the declarants estate therelationshi, of the declarant to the common relati&e may not %e ,ro&ed %y the declarationitself5 %!t this re!irement does not a,,ly where it is so!ht to reach the estate of thedeclarant himself and not merely to esta%lish a riht thro!h his declarations to the ,ro,ertyof some other mem%er of the family. 'here a ,arty claims a riht to the ,art of the estate ofthe declarant5 the declaration of the latter that the former is her niece is admissi%le andconstit!tes s!fficient ,roof of s!ch relationshi,5 notwithstandin the fact that there was noother ,reliminary e&idence thereof5 the reason that s!ch declaration is rendered com,etent %y&irt!e of the necessity of recei&in s!ch e&idence to a&oid a fail!re of :!stice.

    B(: 0iancarlo

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    23/66

    other family "ooks or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits andthe like, may "e received as evidence of pedigree.

    Case:

    ,errer v. e -ncausti32 Pil. %1/ #$%$2&

    ,amil( Tradition = Common eputation

    ,acts: *laintiffs +afael and Maria Anelina Ferrer filed a com,laint ,rayin for a declarationthat +osa Matilde iademonte5 mother of the ,laintiffs herein5 had the riht to s!cceed to theinheritance left %y $sa%el =onales in the same ,ro,ortion and ca,acity as the other fo!rchildren of the latter namely5 +amon5 +afael5 oa!in5 and Clotilde. ;he ,laintiffs allee thatthey are the only leitimate heirs of +osa iademonte and are entitled to recei&e the lattersshare5 that is5 one-fifth of the estate left %y $sa%el =onales. ;hey allee that $sa%el was firstmarried to +amon Martine iademonte and that their mother +osa was the fr!it of their

    relationshi,. $sa%el was then married ose oa!in de $ncha!sti5 father of defendants herein.

    Co!nsel for the ,laintiffs so!ht to esta%lish that +osa Matilde iademonte has %eentreated and considered as a da!hter of $sa%el =onales and that on one occasion5 the said=onales remared that the father of +osa Matilde was +amon Martine de iademonte.Also5 that oa!in C. de $ncha!sti dedicated a ,ict!re to +osa in the followin manner# H;omy dear and !nforetta%le sister +osa.I Collee records of the latter at Colleio de Santa$sa%el were shown to !se esta%lish filiation.

    ;he defendants ,resented an entry in the note%oo of +amon iademonte r. whichshowed that tr!e name of +osa Matilde iademonte was +osa Matilde +o%les5 %orn of

    !nnown ,arents in Se,tem%er "5 "B2. (otwithstandin the ar!ments of the ,laintiff5oa!in de $ncha!sti testified that one day he was ass!red %y his half %rother +amonMartine iademonte that +osa Matilde was not his sister %!t a mere ,rotPPe and that hertr!e name was +osa Matilde +o%les and that on occasion the said %rother showed him thecertificate of %irth of which E@hi%it 8 is a co,y5 which he too from the ,arochial ch!rch.

    -ssue:'hether or not oa!in de $ncha!stis testimony and the diary acco!nts of +amoniademonte r. are admissi%le to ,ro&e the filiation of +osa Matilde iademonte to $sa%el=onales

    ulin+: Oes.E&idence add!ced at the trial to ,ro&e the oriin of the ca!se of action shows5in a manner which lea&es no room for do!%t5 that +osa was not a leitimate da!hter of$sa%el =onales and it follows that her children ha&e no riht to a ,art of the hereditary,ro,erty of $sa%el =onales.

    $n &iew of the fact that +amon Martine iademonte is now dead5 the testimony ofoa!in ose de $ncha!sti referrin to the said deceased is admissi%le as e&idence of familytradition5 for they are mem%ers of the same family and conse!ently the concl!sion is that+osa Matilde is the same +osa Matilde +o%les mentioned in E@hi%it 8 and %eca!se she was

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 22 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    24/66

    %orn in "B25 in no manner co!ld she %e a leitimate da!hter of +amon iademonte and$sa%el =onales5 whose marriae was dissol&ed "n "B38 %y the death of the h!s%and.

    B(: 0iancarlo

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    25/66

    ,artic!lar testimony is at &ariance with the testimonies of 'ison and ;imoteo who testifiedthat the land %eloned to the Central =o&ernment not the city7. 1is testimony was %ased onwhat he had learned from the oldest residents of that section of the city and was introd!ced%y the City of Manila a,,arently for the ,!r,ose of ,ro&in that the city was enerallyconsidered the owner of the land drawin from this fact the ,res!m,tion of act!al ownershi,

    !nder ,arara,h ""5 section 3345 of the Code of Ci&il *roced!re now Section 4"5 +!le "30of the +!les of Co!rt7.

    -ssue: 'hether or not the testimony of illeas is admissi%le as ,roof of Hcommonre,!tation.I

    ulin+:(o.illeas testimony is merely hearsay.

    Since it consisted of what he had learned from some of the old residents of Manila5 itwas hearsay as to the co!rt since those who said it were not ,rod!ced. S!ch testimony doesnot constit!te the Hcommon re,!tationI referred to in the section mentioned. HCommon

    re,!tationI as !sed in that section5 is e!i&alent to !ni&ersal re,!tation. ;he testimony ofilleas is not s!fficient to esta%lish the ,res!m,tion referred to. F!rthermore5 this witnessstated that the land in Calle Acarraa had %een ,artitioned %etween the m!nici,ality and theCentral =o&ernment5 share and share alie5 and that the Central =o&ernment not the city7retained Calles =a%riel de +i&era and )arcelona5 which are ,recisely the streets on which the,ro,erty a%!ts.

    B(: 0iancarlo

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    26/66

    "0 in the e&enin of an!ary 205 "B905 the com,lainant was already aslee, inside the room attheir maret stall when the acc!sed5 who was then the %aranay ca,tain5 awaened her %yenterin her room after one of her children o,ened the door for him. 1e in&ited her to :oinhim to o%ser&e the ,ersons drinin wine in the maret %eca!se they are in &iolation of a%aranay ordinance ,rohi%itin drinin after "0 ,m. She consented. 'hile they were

    standin two meters away from the o,en door of the canteen5 the acc!sed s!ddenly ra%%ed%oth of her hands and alleedly ,ointed a !n at her after she sho!ted lo!dly only once7. ;heacc!sed then ,!lled her and she fell hittin her head on the ro!nd. 'hen she reainedconscio!sness5 she was draed to a %anana ro&e where she was alleedly ra,ed whichlasted for less than an ho!r. She only reached home at a%o!t "2 midniht and one of herda!hters ased her what ha,,ened. She re&ealed that the acc!sed a%!sed her and when,ressed for details5 she :!st said that she will :!st tell e&erythin in the mornin. She told heras s!ch and they then re,orted the incident. She was also s!%mitted for to a medicale@amination. )ased on the e&idence ,resented5 the acc!sed was con&icted. )y way ofre%!ttal d!rin a,,eal5 the acc!sed em,hasied the fail!re of the ,rosec!tion to esta%lishin&ol!ntariness on the ,art of the &ictim.

    -ssues:

    ". 'hether or not the ,rosec!tion failed to esta%lish the in&ol!ntariness of the &ictim.2. 'hether or not the trial co!rt erred in considerin the re&elation of the com,lainant to

    her da!hter of what ha,,ened to her as ,art of the res estae.

    ulin+:

    ". Oes. ;he ,rosec!tion failed. ;he circ!mstances of the case militated aainst the claimof the com,lainant that force and intimidation was em,loyed %y the acc!sed. Shesho!ld ha&e declined the in&itation. =oin o!t alone with a man late in the e&enin isnot ood taste nor safe. She was also not discreet %eca!se she did not e&en ,!t any!nderwear. She also only sho!ted for hel, once when she co!ld ha&e done more and:!st ran. She also offered no resistance nor str!le main the cons!mmation last foralmost an ho!r.

    2. Oes. ;he +;C erred in considerin the re&elation as ,art of the res estae. he )ourtstressed that in order for the statement to be part of the res gestae, it must not only bespontaneous but also be made at a time when there was no opportunity to concoct or

    develop a story.As the Co!rt o%ser&ed5 she did not o home immediately after theincident. She too a wal and s,ent sometime thinin of what to do. She had eno!htime to mae a decision of what will %e the nat!re of her story.

    B(:

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    27/66

    ,acts: ;his is an a,,eal from the decision of the CF$ con&ictin the acc!sed of m!rderin;eod!lo *animdim. n (o&em%er 225 "B8B5 while the &ictim was attendin a dance5 he wassta%%ed in the left roin. As a res!lt5 he died fi&e days later. *!tian was chared andcon&icted of m!rder on the %asis of the testimony of the doctor who treated the &ictim and ofthe ,oliceman who arrested the acc!sed and seied from him the daer alleedly !sed in the

    sta%%in and who too down the &ictims ante-mortem statement identifyin the acc!sed asthe assailant. ;he trial co!rt rearded the &ictims ante-mortem statement as ,art of the resestae and not as a dyin declaration since it was not made !nder the conscio!sness of anim,endin death. ;he &ictim was e&en a%le to o home after the medical treatment witho!tany assistance. ;he a,,ellant challenes the trial co!rts r!lin that the statement %e made,art of the res estae %eca!se it was not s,ontaneo!s5 %ein made se&eral ho!rs after theincident. 1e claims that the re!isite that the declarant a&e the statement %efore he had timeto de&ise or contri&e was not ,resent in this case.

    -ssue:'hether or not the trial co!rt erred in r!lin that the statement %e made ,art of the resestae.

    ulin+:(o. ;he S!,reme Co!rt r!led that the trial co!rt did not err in characteriin*animdims statement as ,art of the res estae and as ,ro&in %eyond reasona%le do!%t that*!tian is !ilty of sta%%in the &ictim.

    ;he res estae r!le em%races a7 s,ontaneo!s declarations and %7 &er%al acts.*animdims statement was a s,ontaneo!s statement made after the commission of the felony.Altho!h a declaration does not a,,ear to ha&e %een made %y the declarant !nder thee@,ectation of a s!re and im,endin death5 and5 for the reason5 is not admissi%le as a dyindeclaration5 yet if s!ch declaration was made at the time of5 or immediately thereafter, thecommission of the crime, or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence

    still continued in the declarant-s mind5 it is admissi%le as ,art of the res estae.

    *animdims staetement was i&en sometime after the sta%%in while he was!nderoin treatment at a medical clinic. 1e had no time to concoct a falsehood or fa%ricatea malicio!s chare aain *!tian. (o moti&e has %een shown as to why he wo!ld frame !,*!tian.

    *!tian5 howe&er5 was con&icted only of homicide since treachery was not ,ro&en.

    B(:

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    28/66

    forci%ly %reain a wooden window rill of the comfort room and then demanded from herchildren the wherea%o!ts of Adelaidas money. At that time5 the children were accom,anied%y their co!sin5 =race *a!le5 who was a%le to reconie all the acc!sed e@ce,t for whoseface was co&ered %eca!se ;olentino is %oth her !ncle and %arriomate5 ;ala is a relati&e of hermother and Matawaran as a %arada of ;ala. 'hen ohn Doe threatened to sta% the ids5 one

    of the children5 =eraldine5 ot so frihtened that she re&ealed where her mother hid themoney. After ;olentino too the money5 he sta%%ed =race *a!le !sin a scythe andthereafter5 sta%%ed the three other children one after the other. After =race reained herconscio!sness5 she cried for hel, and was heard %y her mother and randmother. Adelaidawas then informed of the incident and th!s r!shed to her ho!se. She ased =eraldine who theres,onsi%le ,ersons were and the latter answered )on-)on and also mentionin the namesof ;ala and Matawaran. All the children died. =race *a!le was the only s!r&i&in &ictimwho later ,ositi&ely identified the three acc!sed. ;ala ar!ed that no ,ro%ati&e &al!e sho!ld%e i&en to the e@tra:!dicial statement of =arace taen %y the fiscal while she was stayin inthe hos,ital5 since his name and that of Matawaran were not mentioned. ;he acc!sed alsoassailed the admissi%ility of the statement of =eraldine as ,ar of the res estae.

    -ssues:

    ". 'hether or not the trial co!rt erred in admittin the statement of =race *a!le.2. 'hether or not the trial co!rt erred in admittin the statement of =eraldine.

    ulin+:

    ". (o. ;he trial co!rt did not err in admittin =races e@tra:!dicial statement. Fail!re tomention some of the names of the acc!sed was d!e to the fact that at the time herstatements were taen5 she was then roy and delirio!s %!t she was ne&erthelessa%le to identify all of them on the witness stand. ;here is no im,ro,er moti&e on her,art to im,licate ;ala who is e&en her mothers relati&e. 1er testimony was alsocorro%orated %y Adelaida when the latter testified that her da!hter =eraldinementioned the names of ;ala and Matawaran.

    2. (o. ;he trial co!rt was correct in admittin =eraldines statement as ,art of the resestae. ;he ;C had correctly a,,lied the ,rinci,le of the res estae5 namely# ! thatthe principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence/ 02 that the statements

    were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise/ and 0" that the

    statements made must concern the occurrence in +uestion and its immediately

    attending circumstances. All are ,resent in the case at %ar as =eraldine had named theacc!sed-a,,ellants as the ,er,etrators in the commission of the crime immediatelyafter the occ!rrence of the sta%%in incident.

    B(:

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    29/66

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    30/66

    Areement with Ca,ital and s,o!ses =alan where%y the latter ,arties areed to ,ay theformer a s!m of money with interest in consideration of *hilAm iss!in a clearance in fa&orof the =alan s,o!ses. ;he s!m in&ol&ed was ,aid in f!ll %y Ca,ital. 1owe&er5 it was alsosti,!lated in the MA that Ca,ital will also %e lia%le to any o%liation arisin from!nremitted ,remi!n collection. n March "B5 "B835 *hilAm wrote Ca,ital a letter ad&isin it

    that the =alans ha&e inc!rred additional acco!nts %y way of !nre,orted ,remi!m collectionsand demandin ,ayment thereof. ;he iss!e %oils down to the !estion of whether *hilam has,ro&ed s!ch !nre,orted collections. $n the action of *hilAm for the collection of money5 it,resented )acani5 its chief of acco!nts to testify on a statement of acco!nt showin theinde%tedness of the de%tors. )acani5 howe&er5 did not ha&e ,ersonal nowlede a%o!t howthe acco!nt had arisen. 1is office merely com,!ted the chares %ased on de%it memosrecei&ed from other de,artments. ;he *hilAm maintains that the statement is admissi%le%eca!se it was a matter of com,any ro!tine that chares for !nremitted ,remi!ms areco&ered thro!h the Acco!ntants Control ffice as soon as they are disco&ered.

    -ssue: 'hether or not the trial co!rt erred in admittin in e&idence the statement of acco!nt.

    ulin+: Oes. ;he statement of acco!nt co!ld not %e leally recei&ed in e&idence. )eforeentries in the co!rse of %!siness may %e recei&ed5 it m!st %e shown that they were made %y a,erson who was in a ,osition to now the facts therein stated. ;he Co!rt said that )acanicertainly did not ha&epersonal (nowledgeof the transactions to which s!ch entries refer. ;her!le also re!ires that the entries m!st ha&e %een made %y a ,erson deceased5 o!tside the*hili,,ines5 or !na%le to testifyQ. $n this case5 )acani is neither of those en!merated. ;olend ,ro%ati&e &al!e to the entries wo!ld %e to co!ntenance rece,tion of self-ser&ine&idence made witho!t the inter&ention of other ,arties in&ol&ed.

    issentin+ @pinion: ;he r!le says entriesQ%y a ,ersonQwho was in a ,osition to now. $tis not essential that the entrant sho!ld ha&e ,ersonal nowlede of the facts entered %y him.$f he made the entry in the re!lar co!rse of %!siness5 recordin an oral on a written re,ortmade to him %y other ,ersons in the re!lar co!rse of %!siness lyin in the ,ersonalnowlede of the latter5 it may %e recei&ed ,ro&ided the incon&enience of ,rod!cin then!mero!s ,ersons th!s concerned o!tweihs the ,ro%a%le !tility of doin so. $n this case5 thestatement s!%stantially satisfies the element of tr!stworthiness and necessity that !nderlie theconsideration of e@ce,tions to the hearsay r!le.

    B(:

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    31/66

    person in the performance of a duty specially en#oined "y law, are primafacie evidence of the facts therein stated. 23%

    Cases:

    !frica vs. Calte9$" SC! 442 #$%""&

    @fficial ecords

    Facts#n March "95 "B495 fire %roe o!t at the Calte@ ser&ice station in Manila. ;he fire

    s,read to and %!rned se&eral neih%orin ho!ses. ;heir owners amon them ,etitioners inthis case s!ed res,ondents Calte@ ,hils and Mateo )o!iren5 aent in chare of o,eration.;he action filed %y the ,etitioners is one for damaes !nder Article "B02 and "B03 of the oldci&il code. ;he ,etitioners alleed nelience on the ,art of the res,ondents as the ca!se of

    the fire. ;hey ,resented the ,olice and fire de,artment re,orts to s!%stantiate their claim.

    *L$CE +E*+; ;he re,ort stated the circ!mstances s!rro!ndin the ca!se of thefire. ;he re,ort also stated that Hthe !ic action of Leandro Flores in ,!llin off the asolinehose connectin the tr!ch with the !nderro!nd tan ,re&ented a terrific e@,losion.I

    F$+E DE*A+;ME(; +E*+; H$n connection with their alleation that the,remises was s!%leased for the installation of a coca-cola and ciarette stand5 thecom,lainants f!rnished this office a co,y of a ,hotora,h taen d!rin the fire and which iss!%mitted herewith. $t a,,ears in this ,ict!re that there are in the ,remises a coca-cola coolerand a rac which accordin to information athered in the neih%orhood contained ciarettes

    and matches installed %etween the asoline ,!m,s and the !nderro!nd tans.

    CA*;. ;$($ ;he re,ort re,rod!ced information i&en %y a certain )enitoMorlaes reardin the history of the asoline station and what the chief of the fire de,artmenthad told him on the same s!%:ect.

    +;C and Co!rt of A,,eals r!led that ,etitioners failed to ,ro&e nelience and thatres,ondents had e@ercised d!e care in the ,remises and with res,ect to the s!,er&ision oftheir em,loyees. ;he co!rt held that the ,olice and fire de,artment re,orts were inadmissi%leas %ein Hdo!%le hearsay.I 1ence5 ,etitioners filed a ,etition for certiorari to the S!,remeCo!rt ar!in that the re,orts in themsel&es5 witho!t f!rther testimonial e&idence on theircontents5 fall within the sco,e of section 35 +!le "235 which ,ro&ides that Hentries in officialrecords made in the ,erformance of his d!ty %y a ,!%lic officer of the *hili,,ines5 or %y a,erson in the ,erformance of a d!ty s,ecially en:oined %y law5 are ,rima facie e&idence ofthe facts therein stated.I

    $ss!eNs#". 'hether or not the re,orts ,re,ared %y the Manila ,olice5 fire de,artments and a

    certain Ca,t. ;inio of the AF* are admissi%le in e&idence.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 30 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    32/66

    1eld#". ;he re,orts are inadmissi%le. ;here are three re!isites for admissi%ility !nder the

    r!le :!st mentioned.a. that the entry was made %y a ,!%lic officer or %y another ,erson s,ecially en:oined %y

    law to do so%. that it was made %y the ,!%lic officer in the ,erformance of his d!ties or %y s!chother ,erson in the ,erformance of a d!ty s,ecially en:oined %y law

    c. that the ,!%lic officer or other ,erson had s!fficient nowlede of the facts %y himstated5 which m!st ha&e %een ac!ired %y him ,ersonally or thro!h officialinformation.

    f the three re!isites :!st stated5 only the last is material to the iss!e in this case.%&io!sly5 the material facts recited in the re,orts as to the ca!se and circ!mstances of thefire were (; '$;1$( ;1E *E+S(AL ;O; =$E S>C1 S;A;EME(;S.

    ;he re,orts in !estion do not constit!te an e@ce,tion to the hearsay r!leG the factsstated therein were not ac!ired %y the re,ortin officers thro!h official information5 notha&in %een i&en %y the informants ,!rs!ant to any d!ty to do so.

    1owe&er5 in the re,ort s!%mitted %y Ca,tain Mariano of the Manila *oliceDe,artment5 the nelience of the res,ondents were esta%lished. ;he co!rt held that theforeoin re,ort was an e@ce,tion to the hearsay r!le since Ca,tain Mariano ,re,ared it%asin it from his ,ersonal nowlede. ;he Co!rt held Calte@ lia%le for the fire and im,osedsolidary lia%ility.

    B(: !rnaldo nion where she also resided. ;he acc!sed5 ose,h Leones5 was a mem%er of the Leonesfamily. ne day5 all the mem%ers of the D!lay family went for a ,icnic. 'hen the acc!sedand her sister went %ac to the ho!se5 they saw the condition of $rene5 who was then feelin&ery diy. ;he acc!sed tried to i&e $rene medicine %!t the later ref!sed so he forced her todrin it. After drinin the medicine5 $rene felt more diy. ;he acc!sed too ad&antae of$renes condition and s!cceeded in ra,in her. ;he ste,mother of the acc!sed fo!nd $renewitho!t any ,anty and %ro!ht her to the hos,ital where she was e@amined %y a doctor.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 3" -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    33/66

    ;he medical e@amination cond!cted %y Dr. Cayao re&ealed the followin". healin lacerations of the hyment at 2 ocloc and "0 ocloc2. smear e@am for s,erm cell neati&e3. easily admit one finer with ,ain

    ;hereafter5 the case for ra,e was filed aainst the acc!sed. ;he acc!sed denied the chareim,!ted to him and set !, the defense of ali%i claimin that he was at the %each with hisfamily at the time the alleed incident ha,,ened.

    +;C r!led that the acc!sed is !ilty %eyond reasona%le do!%t of ha&in committed the crimeof ra,e and was sentenced toeclusion 1erpetua.1ence the direct a,,eal to the SC.

    $ss!eNs#'hether or not the e&identiary &al!e of the medical record ,resented %y the o&ernment iss!fficient to warrant con&iction

    1eld#". (o. S!,reme Co!rt r!led for the ac!ittal of the acc!sed. ;he clinical case record of$renes admission and confinement at the hos,ital contain entries which totally andcom,letely %elie the claim of the com,lainant that she was ra,ed %y the acc!sed. ;he entry inthe medical record of $rene stated A=$(AL )LEED$(= 1EAL$(= LACE+A;ED'$DE A; 2 ocloc and "0 o cloc hymen. Ass!min that the &ictim was ra,ed %etween 2and 3 ,m. ;hen the lacerations of the hymen at 2 ocloc and "0 ocloc wo!ld not ha&e%een descri%ed and indicated to %e 1EAL$(= in the clinical case record. $t wo!ld %edescri%ed as LACE+A;$( FLES1.

    ;he findins of healin laceration clearly indicates that the defloration occ!rred SEE+ALDAOS )EF+E5 which may ha&e ha,,ened when $rene too a wee-lon &acation to herhometown in *!o La >nion.

    ;he written entries in the clinical case record showin the date of her admission the hos,italand her com,laint of &ainal %leedin and the dianosis of Hhealin lacerated wide at 2ocloc and "0 ocloc hymenI are ,rima facie e&idence of the facts therein stated5 the saidentries ha&in %een made in official records %y ,!%lic officer of the *hili,,ines in the,erformance of his d!ty es,ecially en:oined %y law which is that of a ,hysician in ao&ernment hos,ital. R +!le "30 sec. 395 +!les of Co!rt

    ;he co!rt also fo!nd that $rene ne&er com,lained of %ein ra,e %!t that her &ainal %leedinwas ca!sed %y her menstr!ation. ;he co!rt also o%ser&ed that it is !ite a%normal and!nheard of in h!man e@,erience and %eha&ior that a man wo!ld ha&e se@!al interco!rse witha woman ha&in her menstr!al ,eriod.

    ;he co!rt ac!itted the acc!sed after it concl!ded that the e&idence ,rod!ced %y the,rosec!tion were not ,ers!asi&e to esta%lish the !ilt %eyond reasona%le do!%t of theacc!sed.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 32 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    34/66

    B(: !rnaldo

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    35/66

    their se&eral tr!sts with acc!racy and fidelityG and5 therefore5 whate&er acts they do indischare of their ,!%lic d!ty may %e i&en in e&idence and shall %e taen to %e tr!e !nders!ch a deree of ca!tion as the nat!re and circ!mstances of each case may a,,ear to re!ire.+%les sho!ld ,ay the ,laintiffs for the amo!nt of *35000.

    B(: !rnaldo

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    36/66

    ictoria was liewise missin. 1ence5 on the %asis of s!ch e&idence5 s!s,ects werecon&icted of the crime of ro%%ery with ra,e and homicide.

    $ss!eNs#". 'hether or not E&elyn de era had ,ositi&ely identified Modesto Ca%!an and

    (ardo Mata%an as the assailants of Maria ictoria5 when the entry in the )ayam%an ,olice%lotter5 stated that the assailants were Ustill !nidentifiedU5 altho!h s!ch entry was made after,rosec!tion witness E&elyn de era was !estioned %y the ,olice.

    2. 'hether or not the defense of denial and ali%i may %e i&en weiht. And inrelation thereto5 whether or not circ!mstantial e&idence may %e considered ade!ate tocon&ict the a,,ellants %eyond reasona%le do!%t since E&elyn did not witness the act!al se@assa!lt and slayin of the &ictim.1eld#

    ". +;C decision was affirmed. ;he ,olice in&estiator5 *fc. Eleio Lo,e5 whoinitially !estioned witness De era that mornin5 noticed that she was in a state of shoc.1e accordinly chose to defer f!rther !estionin !ntil the afternoon of the same day when

    E&elyn had calmed down s!fficiently to %e a%le to i&e a sworn statement to the ,olice. ;h!s5there was the initial re,ort ,re,ared and recorded in the ,olice %lotter at aro!nd "" oTcloc inthe mornin5 statin that the assailants were still !nidentifiedG there was5 !,on the other hand5E&elyn de eraTs sworn statement made and com,leted in the afternoon of the same day5where she re&ealed the identities of the men she had seen the niht %efore.

    2. ;he fail!re of E&elyn to s,ecify the acc!sed-a,,ellants as the doers of the crime5the first time she was !estioned %y the ,olice5 does not ad&ersely affect her credi%ility. $t isfirmly settled case law that the delay of a witness in re&ealin to the ,olice a!thority what heor she may now a%o!t a crime does not5 %y itself5 render the witnessT testimony !nworthy of%elief.

    3. $t remains only to note that entries in a ,olice %lotter tho!h re!larly done in theco!rse of ,erformance of official d!ty5 are not concl!si&e ,roof of the tr!th of s!ch entries5$n *eo,le &. Santito5 r.5 "2 the Co!rt held that entries in official records lie a ,olice %lotterare only ,rima facie e&idence of the facts therein set o!t5 since the entries in the ,olice %lotterco!ld well %e incom,lete or inacc!rate. ;estimony i&en in o,en co!rt d!rin the trial iscommonly m!ch more lenthy and detailed than the %rief entries made in the ,olice %lotterand the trial co!rt cannot %ase its findins on a ,olice re,ort merely5 %!t m!st necessarilyconsider all other e&idence athered in the co!rse of the ,olice in&estiation and ,resented inco!rt. $n the case at %ar5 *rosec!tion witness E&elyn de era did ,ositi&ely and clearlyidentify Modesto Ca%!an and (ardo Mata%an as amon those who had ra,ed and illedand ro%%ed the &ictim.

    4. Modesto Ca%!ans ali%i that he was s!,,osedly attendin the wae held in thesame %aranay where Maria ictoria was illed5 as well as (ardo Mata%ans e@c!se thathe was alleedly in a town more than an ho!r away %y %!s was not i&en weiht. ;he firmlysettled doctrine is that the defense of ali%i cannot ,ros,er5 !nless the acc!sed is a%le to ,ro&ethat he was at some other ,lace d!rin the commission of the crime and that it wasim,ossi%le for him to ha&e %een at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 3 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    37/66

    . n the other hand5 the followin circ!mstantial e&idence ,rod!ced con&iction of!ilt %eyond reasona%le do!%t. n "4 cto%er "B995 acc!sed Ca%!an and Mata%ans!ddenly a,,eared from the s!rro!ndin rice fields5 Ca%!an ra%%ed Maria ictoria andco&ered her mo!th. E&elyn ran away %eca!se she %ecame terri%ly frihtened and Mata%an

    followed in ,!rs!it. From her hidin ,lace in the front yard of a ho!se alon the road5 E&elynsaw Maria ictoria ,ass %y in a tricycle with the acc!sed Early the ne@t mornin5 the %ody ofMaria ictoria was fo!nd in the %aranay tra&ersed %y the road on which Maria ictoriawere walin the niht %efore. 1ence5 !dment was affirmed.

    B(: Beverl( . Santia+o

    People vs. San 0abriel

    /3 SC! 24 #$%%"&

    Entries in te @fficial ecord

    Facts#;he e&idence shows that on 28 (o&em%er "B9B5 at the &icinity of the (orth 1ar%or5

    Manila5 a fistfiht ens!ed %etween aime ;ono on one hand and the acc!sed +icardo San=a%riel toether with U+amon DoeU on the other. ;he fiht was e&ent!ally %roen !, whenonlooers ,acified the ,rotaonists. +icardo and +amon then hastened towards Marcos +oad%!t in no time were %ac with %laded wea,ons. ;hey a,,roached ;ono s!rre,titio!sly5s!rro!nded him and sim!ltaneo!sly sta%%ed him5 after which the assailants ran towards thehihway lea&in ;ono %ehind on the ro!nd. 1e was then %ro!ht to Mary ohnson1os,ital where he was ,rono!nced dead on arri&al.

    ;he acc!sed on the other hand has a different &ersion. 1e testified that he saw ;onodr!nG ;ono attem,ted to %o@ him %!t he ,arried his %lowG ;ono contin!ed walin %!twhen he chanced !,on +amon he s!ddenly and witho!t ,ro&ocation %o@ed and iced+amonG +amon fo!ht %ac %!t was s!%d!ed %y his %ier assailant so the former rantowards the hihwayG when ;ono met a certain UMandoU he %o@ed the latter who howe&erfo!ht %ac des,ite his acc!sed7 warnin not toG at this moment he saw +amon ret!rn with a%olo on handG he warned +amon not to fiht %!t his ad&ice went !nheededG instead5 with %oloon hand +amon str!c ;ono on the %ellyG when UMandoU saw what ha,,ened he UMandoU7,!lled o!t his nife and also sta%%ed ;ono at the %acG +amon and UMandoU then fledtowards the hihway.

    ;he lower co!rt did not %elie&e the acc!seds &ersion and instead con&icted him%ased on the testimony of two ,rosec!tion witnesses )renda =onales and *io cho%illo.

    $ss!eNs#". 'hether or not the testimonies of the ,rosec!tion witnesses are incredi%le and

    conflictin.

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 38 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    38/66

    2. 'hether or not the Ad&ance $nformation Sheet did not mention him at all andnamed only U+amon DoeU as the ,rinci,al s!s,ect. $n relation thereto5 was the Ad&ance$nformation Sheet an e@ce,tion to hearsay r!le5 %ein entries made in the official records

    1eld#

    ". (o. +;C Decision was affirmed. =onales and cho%illo testified in a direct andcandid manner. ;he co!rt was not con&inced that =onales wo!ld testify aainst acc!sed-a,,ellant for a crime so ra&e sim,ly %eca!se he owed her a measly s!m of *300.00.F!rthermore5 the acc!sed did not offer any information reardin the ,erson andcirc!mstances of UMando.U >, to this date UMandoU remains a myth. (ot a sinle witnesswas ,resented %y the defense to ,ro&e who UMandoU was5 nor e&en a hint of his ,ersonalcirc!mstances. D!rin the entire ,roceedins in the co!rt %elow UMandoUwas ne&ermentioned %y the ,rosec!tion witnesses. (o%ody e&er im,licated him e@ce,t the acc!sed.

    2. Oes. As reards the Ad&ance information sheet5 which did not mention San =a%rielat all and named only U+amon DoeU as the ,rinci,al s!s,ect. >nfort!nately this cannot defeat

    the ,ositi&e and candid testimonies of the ,rosec!tion witnesses. Entries in official records5as in the case of a ,olice %lotter5 are only ,rima facie e&idence of the facts therein stated.;hey are not concl!si&e. ;he entry in the ,olice %lotter is not necessarily entitled to f!llcredit for it co!ld %e incom,lete and inacc!rate5 sometimes from either ,artial s!estions orfor want of s!estions or in!iries5 witho!t the aid of which the witness may %e !na%le torecall the connected collateral circ!mstances necessary for the correction of the firsts!estion of his memory and for his acc!rate recollection of all that ,ertain to the s!%:ect. $tis !nderstanda%le that the testimony d!rin the trial wo!ld %e more lenthy and detailed thanthe matters stated in the ,olice %lotter. Sinificantly5 the Ad&ance $nformation Sheet wasne&er formally offered %y the defense d!rin the ,roceedins in the co!rt %elow. 1ence anyreliance %y the acc!sed on the doc!ment m!st fail since the co!rt cannot consider anye&idence5 which has not %een formally offered.

    F!rthermore5 the Ad&ance $nformation Sheet was ,re,ared %y the ,olice officer onlyafter inter&iewin Cam%a5 an alleed eyewitness. ;he acc!sed then co!ld ha&e com,elled theattendance of Cam%a as a witness. ;he fail!re to e@ert the slihtest effort to ,resent Cam%aon the ,art of the acc!sed sho!ld militate aainst his ca!se.

    Entries in official records made in the ,erformance of his d!ty %y a ,!%lic officer or%y a ,erson in the ,erformance of a d!ty s,ecially en:oined %y law are ,rima facie e&idenceof the facts therein stated. )!t to %e admissi%le in e&idence three 37 re!isites m!st conc!r#a7 ;he entry was made %y a ,olice officer or %y another ,erson s,ecially en:oined %y law todo soG %7 $t was made %y the ,!%lic officer in the ,erformance of his d!ties or %y s!ch other,erson in the ,erformance of a d!ty s,ecially en:oined %y lawG and5 c7 ;he ,!%lic officer orother ,erson had s!fficient nowlede of the facts %y him stated5 which m!st ha&e %eenac!ired %y him ,ersonally or thro!h official information.

    ;he Ad&ance $nformation Sheet does not constit!te an e@ce,tion to the hearsay r!le5hence5 inadmissi%le. ;he ,!%lic officer who ,re,ared the doc!ment had no s!fficient and,ersonal nowlede of the sta%%in incident. Any information ,ossessed %y him was

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 36 -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    39/66

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    40/66

    ;he $( of the +oad +!nner located in the dash%oard dri&ers side did not a,,ear toha&e %een factory installed. Defendant claimed that s!ch condition was %eca!se hiswindshield %roe5 inition stolen5 %o!ht new seats5 re,laced enine and ,laced a newradiator and %race. 1e did not say when he re,laced s!ch nor did he ,resent any recei,ts. 1ehad new front ,lates %eca!se he lost the old one. ;he color of the car was also different from

    reistered color.

    ;he +oad +!nner was factory traced thro!h the factory order n!m%er. Factory trace,ermits identification of first owner and the ,ro,er $( of the &ehicle. Detecti&e 'alsho%tained confidential factory code V from the +oad +!nner and so!ht factory trace from the(A;). $nformation led him to 'iltons stolen &ehicle. State relied on (A;) factory traceinformation to esta%lish that the car in 'alshs ,ossession was the same car stolen from'ilton. ;he entire tracin ,rocess was cr!cial in States attem,t to lin car of defendant andthat which was stolen from 'ilton. )!t no information a%o!t ,ro%a%le relia%ility of (A;)was fo!nd in the record.

    ;he (ational A!tomo%ile ;heft )!rea! is a non-,rofit cor,oration5 national in sco,eand financed %y o&er BW of a!tomo%ile ins!rance com,anies. $ts ,!r,ose was to ,re&entand red!ce theft losses of a!tomo%iles. $t assem%les and disseminates information on stolen&ehicles and assists law enforcement in their identification and reco&ery. (A;) issometimes called !,on for information ,ertinent to in&estiations with reard identifyin andretrie&in stolen cars.

    ;C con&icted 'alsh %ased on s!ch information.

    $ss!eNs#". 'hether or not the information o%tained from (A;) was admissi%le as e&idence.2. 'hether or not ,olice record is admissi%le as e&idence !nder the )!siness Entries

    e@ce,tion

    1eld#". (o. $nformation o%tained from (A;) is not admissi%le as e&idence %eca!se 'alsh

    failed to tell the :!ry the ,recise content of the information recei&ed from (A;). ;he,rocess of tracin the identity of the +oad +!nner was de,endent thereon. ;h!s5 relia%ility of(A;) ,roced!res m!st %e ,ro&en. $n this case5 no ,roof of relia%ility of (A;) ,roced!reswere ,resented th!s no ,ro,er e&idential %asis for admission of data deri&ed therefrom.

    S!ch ,roced!re wo!ld %e considered e&idential only if s!ch com,lies with the r!leson e&idence which states# HE&idence of a statement of matters of interest to ,ersons enaedin an occ!,ation contained in a list5 reister5 ,eriodical or other ,!%lished com,ilation isadmissi%le to ,ro&e tr!th of any rele&ant matter so stated if the com,ilation is ,!%lished for!se %y ,ersons enaed in that occ!,ation and is enerally !sed and relied !,on %y them.I

    !alification of e&idence offered m!st %e first decided and m!st satisfy the followin#". !de m!st %e con&inced that the com,ilation is ,!%lished for !se %y ,ersons

    enaed in that occ!,ation

    3C 2003-2004 E&idence *ro:ectol. 4 - 3B -

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    41/66

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    42/66

    B(:

  • 8/12/2019 Hearsay & Opinion Rule

    43/66

    e@cessi&e and that as an e@,ert witness5 he !sed the !otations of his s!,,liers in main hisestimates. )!t he failed to ,resent s!ch sayin that he co!ld not ,rod!ce a %rea down of thecost of his estimates as it was Ha sort of secret scheme.I

    ;h!s the lower co!rt admitted as s!fficient e&idence the !otations ,resented. ;he

    res,ondents merely relied on witness %are claim that the amo!nt ,resented were %loated ore@cessi&e. *etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the lower co!rt decision which wasdenied. (ot ha&in recei&ed order denyin motion for reconsideration5 ,etitioner filedmotion for lea&e to file a re,ly which %ecame moot and academic.

    *etitioner %ro!ht the case to the Co!rt of A,,eals claimin the award was not,ro&ed %y com,etent and admissi%le e&idence. CA r!led that it was not necessary to !alifyDel +osario as an e@,ert witness %eca!se as the owner of the lost &essel5 it was within hisnowlede and com,etency to identify and determine the e!i,ment installed and caroesloaded. 'ith reard the admissi%ility of doc!mentary e&idence ,resented in the nat!re ofmaret re,orts or !otations5 trade :o!rnals5 trade circ!lars and ,rice lists5 the CA held that

    rece,tion of these doc!mentary e&idence rests on the discretion of the lower co!rt !ntil theSC r!les on the admissi%ility or inadmissi%ility of this class of e&idence. 'ith rearde&idence which may a,,ear to %e of do!%tf!l rele&ancy or incom,etency or admissi%ility5 itis the safest ,olicy to %e li%eral not re:ectin them on do!%tf!l or technical ro!nds %!tadmittin them !nless ,lainly irrele&ant5 immaterial or incom,etent for the reason that theirre:ection ,laces them %eyond the consideration of the co!rts. $f they are thereafter fo!ndrele&ant or com,etent can easily %e remedied %y com,letely discardin or inorin them.

    CA r!led that the alleed inadmissi%le doc!mentary e@hi%its were ne&er satisfactorilyre%!tted %y a,,ellants sole witness in the ,erson of Loreno Laaro. ;h!s5 the co!rt fo!ndthat ,etitioner ironically sit!ated itself in an inconsistent ,ost!re %y the fact that its ownwitness relied hea&ily on the same ,ieces of e&idence a,,ellant has so &ioro!sly o%:ected toas inadmissi%le e&idence. CA affirmed decision of the trial co!rt. 'ith reard iss!e of lac of:!risdiction5 additional docet fee may later %e declared still owin co!rt may enforce as alien on :!dment.

    Case was %ro!ht to the SC.

    $SS>E#". 'hether or not the !otations ,resented can %e admitted as a Commercial List

    e@ce,tion to the hearsay r!le2. 'hether or not act