Evidence class by Atty. Gesal Marie Arnoza m3.

Plea-bargain

Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision
on plea-bargaining. (Section 23, Ibid.)

From the book of Atty. Ricardo J. Francisco

Prefinals Lecture purposes

Hearsay explained

The term hearsay as used in the rule of evidence signifies all evidence which is not founded upon the personal knowledge of the
witness from whom it is elicited and which consequently does not depend for its credibility and weight upon the confidence which
the court may have in him.

Briefly, hearsay evidence is information relayed from another person to the witness before it reaches the ears of the court.

It is mere repetition of what the witness has heard other say- hear say.

Its value as evidence depends upon the veracity and competency of someone other than the witness on the stand, since it is given as
a second-hand version of statements made by that other person. Hearsay evidence also may consist of written statements, letters,
or documents. Evidence of this kind, with exceptions hereinafter discussed is not admissible when offered to prove the truth of the
matter wherein asserted.

According to the Rules “a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception…

Double hearsay and Multiple hearsay is not allowed

It may be safely asserted that the chief reasons for the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence are:

1. The fact that hearsay, in its nature, supposes that better evidence exists;
2. That is given without the sanction of an oath and without the opportunity of cross-examination, “these tests of truth which
the law, in general, so wisely requires”;
3. It is intrinsically weak and incompetent to satisfy the human mind;
4. The fact that fraud would be encouraged and supported by its admission.
5. I would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right of being confronted with the
witnesses testifying against him.

Therefore, in the cited example, even though the investigating officer should take the precaution of having the witnesses make
written statements giving their version of the occurrence, such statements would be rejected for the same reasons hiss second-hand
repetition of their stories would be ruled out; they are hearsay. This is true even though such statements be made in affidavit form,
signed and sworn to by the witnesses.

Unless admissible under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, these sworn statements would still be objectionable as hearsay.

Composite sketches have been held to be hearsay because the sketch is drawn by a police artist based on what he h as been told by
a victim or witness. (US cases)

Exceptions to hearsay:

1. Dying declaration

The reason for the admissibility of dying declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule

(a) Necessity and

(b) Trustworthiness.

Requisites:

1. That the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death. This means that a
dying declaration is in admissible as evidence if it concerns or makes references to the cause and circumstances
surrounding another person’s death.

illustration:

The wife in her dying declaration related the cause and circumstances attending the injury which resulted in the death of both
spouses. It was held that the dying declaration was admissible in so far as it concerned the wife’s death and was admissible as to the
husband’s death.

1
 2. That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death. To satisfy this
requisite, the declarant must at the time of making his ante-mortem statement believe that death was inevitable, not
merely possible nor even probable but a definite certainty, that is, he must have no hope of recovery whatsoever.

3. That the declaration must have been made freely and voluntary and without coercion or suggestion of improper influence.
This means that a dying declaration should be rejected if upon the preliminary inquiry as to its admissibility it satisfactorily
appears that it was made under the suggestion of improper influence, or through the agency of others, or have been so
drawn up as to present a partial, incomplete, or false statement of the fact of the killing.

4. That the declarant must have been competent to testify as a witness if he had been called upon to give testimony in court.
Thus, statements which consist of mere hearsay, or opinions and conclusions of the declarant, are not admissible as a dying
declaration. And where the injury of the declarant is such as to deprive him of consciousness, or to place him in such a
condition as to render him unable to give an intelligent account of the transaction, his alleged dying declarations are
inadmissible.

Another exception to the hearsay rule:

Declaration against interest.

Another exception to the hearsay rule is that which provides that: The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the
declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true,
maybe received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.

Requisites:

First, that the declarant is already dead or unable to testify;

Second, that the declaration was against his own interest ;

Third, that a reasonable man in declarant’s position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true.

Illustration:

The declarant’s interest contrary to which he has made a declaration may be either pecuniary or moral. As an example of a
declaration against pecuniary interest, the declarant may acknowledge his indebtedness to another, or state that nothing is due him
from a certain person, or acknowledge the receipt of money or property, or admit that he has converted funds to his obligation or
that he is sole debtor under an instrument which ostensibly binds other as well as himself.

With respect to declarations against moral interest, this may be explained with the following example: M subscribed a statement
addressed to the attending physician at the birth of C in the General Hospital that he is the father of the new born child whose
mother is N to whom he is not married. This statement was embodied in a birth certificate which was forwarded to the Bureau of
Health to be filed. Such statements constitutes a declaration against moral interest. A famous jurist has stated that a statement
which constitutes acknowledgement of a natural child is usually made at the hour of repentance, that it is never too late to save the
honor of a seduced and weak woman, and that it offers in lieu of the abandoned of a helpless child, the shadow of a name.

5. Act or declaration about pedigree

Pedigree is the history of family descent which is transmitted from one generation to another by both oral and written
declarations and by traditions. In order that an act or declaration regarding pedigree may be admissible as evidence, the
following requisites must concur:
1.) That the declarant must be dead or unable to testify;
2.) That the person whose pedigree is in question must be related to the declarant by birth or marriage
3.) That the declaration must be made ante litem motam or before the controversy occurred;
4.) That the relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must as a general rule be
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

While it is usually considered that in order to render a declaration as to pedigree admissible it is necessary that the relationship of
declarant to the family should be of a legitimate character, and , therefore, a bastard’s declarations as to the pedigree of his
repetitive family, or conversely, the declarations of a member of the family to a bastard, are not admissible, there are cases in which
the courts have shown a tendency to relax the rule.

6. Common reputation

It has been long held that common or general reputation may be received as evidence of matters in which the public has an
interest, or which directly concern and affect the mass of the people of a town or locality.

The requisites for the admissibility of common reputation as evidence of facts of a public or general interests are:

2
 1.) That the facts to which the reputation refers are of public or general interest;
2.) That the reputation must have been ancient, that is 30 years old or on generation old,
3.) That the reputation must have been one formed among a class of persons who were in a position to have some sources
of information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion;
4.) The reputation must exist ante litem motam and must have been existing previous to the controversy.
7. Res gestae

The requisites for the admissibility in evidence of spontaneous declarations are:

(1) There must be a startling occurrence;

(2) That the statement must relate to the circumstances of the event;
(3) That the statement must be spontaneous and unpremeditated.

It is essential that the spontaneous exclamation should have been caused by something “startling enough to produce nervous
excitement.” And “to keep the will dormant so for as any deliberation in c matters for speech or selecting words is concerned.
The factors that would be considered in determining whether statements offered in evidence as part of the res gestae have
been made spontaneously or not are:

1. The tie that has elapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the statement;
2. The place where the statement was made;
3. The condition of the declarant when he made the statement;
4. The presence or absence of intervening occurrences between the occurrence and the statement relative thereto; and
5. The nature and circumstances of the statement itself.

There are three requisites for admission of evidence or res gestate:

1.) The principal act, the rest gestae, by a starling occurrence;

2.) That the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
3.) That the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.

Illustration:

An alleged rape victim, a 52 year old widow, who had been married three times, did not immediately go home after the alleged
sexual encounter.

She took a walk. She spent sometime thinking of what to do. Her clothes were muddy. She had some bruises on her body and back
because she was lying down on the ground during the sexual intercourse and their passionate interlude. When she reached home,
she revealed what happened to her daughter.

Held:

She had enough time to make a decision on what will be the nature of her story. Her revelation cannot thus be categorized as part of
the res gestae.

People vs Lungayan 162 SCRA 100

The following statements have been held to be part of the res gestae:

The statements of a child made within an hour after an alleged assault;

The testimony of a police officer as to what a victim told him not more than 30 minutes after an accident

8. Entries in the course of business.

Declarations in the form of book entries made in the regular course of business, though purely hearsay evidence, are under
certain conditions, admissible. They are treated as an exception to the rule against hearsay, and are admitted on the
ground of necessity and because the fact of their having been made in the regular course of business carries with it some
guarantee of trustworthiness.

5 requisites must be present in order that an entry in the regular course of business may be admissible in evidence.
These requisites are:
1.) The entrant must be deceased, or unable to testify.
2.) The entries must have been made at or near the time of transaction to which they referred.
3.) The entries must have been made by the entrant in his professional capacity or in the performance of his duty. What
sort of occupation is immaterial.
4.) The entries must have been made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
5.) The entrant must have been in position to know the facts therein stated.

Illustration:

3
 The entries made in the Registry Book may be considered as entries made in the course of business xxx which is an
exception to the hearsay rule. The baptisms administered by the church are one of its transactions in the exercise of
ecclesiastical duties and recorded in a book of the Church during the course of its business. (U.S. De Vera, 28 Phil)
9. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

The aforesaid entries are of course hearsay because those who made them cannot be cross-examined by the adverse party. But they
are admissible on two grounds:

(a) Necessity and

(b) Trustworthiness.

The necessity consists in the practical impossibility of requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the
innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty and requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the
innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty and requiring to be evidenced.

The requisites which must concur before official entries may be received in evidence are:

1. The entry must have been made by public officer of the Philippines or by a person by law especially enjoined to make such
entry.
2. The entry must have been made in the performance of duty.
3. The entrant must have sufficient knowledge of the facts by him entered.
10. Commercial list and the like

Illustration:

Unofficial report of judicial decisions, when shown to be recognized by the profession, are admissible on this principle.

11. Learned treatise

Illustration:

Dictionary and Encyclopedias

12. Testimony at a former proceeding

Requisites:

1.) That the witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is dead or unable to testify;
2.) That the party against whom the evidence is offered, or his privy, was a party in the former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative;
3.) That the testimony or deposition relates to the same subject matter
4.) And that the adverse party had an opportunity of cross-examination.