Hearsay Evidence Rule

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

Meaning of hearsay

Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the personal knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.

Traditionally, testimony that is given by a witness who relates not what he or she knows personally, but what others have said, and that is therefore dependent on the credibility of someone other than the witness.

Why hearsay is inadmissible

Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person who testifies does so based on matters not of his personal knowledge but based on the knowledge of another who is not in court and cannot therefore, be cross-examined. The one who is in court is the person who merely repeats matters witnessed personally by another. This type of evidence is inadmissible because of its inherent unreliability. Sec. 36, Rule 130 requires that “A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules”.

Hearsay testimony is not subject to the tests which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of the truth of testimony, since the declarant is not present and available for cross-examination.

In criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right of being confronted with the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them. Moreover, the court is without the opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of the person who made them.

● Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but, whether objected to or not, has no probative value and, as opposed to direct primary evidence, the latter always prevails (People vs. Valero, L-45283-84, March 19, 1982)

●  Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value. (People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547, 1992)

●  Newspaper clippings or facts published in the newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of said facts. (People v. Aguel, et al., L-36554, May 19, 1980)

●  A hearsay evidence may be in writing. For instance, an affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant affirms the same in court and is subject to cross-examination. 

Exceptions to the hearsay rule

There are exceptions to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Hearsay evidence may in some instances be admissible. It is not correct to say that the exceptions to the hearsay rule are not hearsay. They are indeed hearsay. But they are admissible because they are considered reliable by common experience. Thus, it would be more appropriate to call these exceptions as admissible hearsay.

1.   Waiver

2.   Independently relevant evidence

3.   dying declaration

4.   Declaration against interest

5.   Act or declaration about pedigree

6.   Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

7.   Common reputation

8.   Part of the res gestae

9.   Entries in the course of business

10.        Entries in official records

11.        Commercial lists and the like

12.        Learned treatises

13.        Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

● A hearsay testimony involves an outside-declarant and an in-court witness. It is the outside declarant who says something based on what he has perceived. His statement is heard by someone who is the one who testifies in court (in-court witness) as to what he heard. If the witness offers the statement of the outside declarant to prove the truth of such statement (the one which he heard) the testimony of the witness is hearsay. If it’s offered merely to prove that he heard the statement without reference to its truth or falsity, his testimony is not hearsay.  Illustration: Wilfredo testifies: “I heard Pablo say that it was Jose who shot the victim”! Is this hearsay? It depends upon the purpose. If the statement of Pablo is offered to prove that it was really Jose who shot the victim, the testimony is hearsay. Wilfredo has no personal knowledge of the incident. It is Pablo who witnessed the shooting. It is Pablo who should be in court to testify so he could be examined effectively. Wilfredo cannot be subjected to a true cross-examination because he has no personal knowledge to testify to and hence, cannot be cross-examined to ferret out the truth.

If the testimony is offered merely to prove what he heard Pablo say, the testimony is not hearsay. If what he heard is relevant to an issue in the case, it will fall under the category of independently relevant statements which means statements which are relevant as to their tenor or to the fact that they were uttered and not as to whether they are true or false.

Doctrine of independent relevant statement

A statement not intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in that statement but to establish only the tenor of the statement, not the truth of the facts of therein asserted.

Example: Where the statement or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts therein stated therein but only to prove that those statements were actually made or those writings were executed, such evidence is not covered by the hearsay evidence rule. The witness who testifies thereto is competent because he heard the same or saw the execution of the document, as there are matters of fact derived from his own perception and the purpose is only to prove either that the statement was made or the tenor thereof (People vs. Cusi, Jr., L-20986, August 14, 1965; Sebastian, Sr. vs. Gachitorena, G.R. No. 114026, October 18, 2000)

Independent of whether the facts stated are true or not, they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.

When may an utterance considered independent relevant statement

1. When the utterance or statement constitute the issue or part of the issue in the case

2. When the utterance or statement is circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.

Special exception to the hearsay rule

Hearsay testimony of a child in child abuse cases (Sec. 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC)

A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:

a. Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall, upon the motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent

b. In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the following factors:

1. Whether there is motive to lie;

2. The general character of the declarant child;

3. Whether more than one person heard the statement;

4. Whether the statement was spontaneous;

5. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness;

6. Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child;

7. The possibility of faulty recollection of declarant child is remote; and

8. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misinterpreted the involvement of the accused.

c.  The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:

1. Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological injury; or

2. Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.

d. When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence

●  Hearsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse may now be admitted in any criminal proceeding, subject to certain prerequisites and the right of cross-examination by the adverse party. The admissibility of such hearsay statements shall be determined by the court in light of specified subjective and objective considerations which provide sufficient indicia of reliability of the child witness. 

Cases

Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino (1975)

The repeated failure of the party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver of such right and the testimony of the said witness who died thereafter should not be excluded from the record

People vs. Cusi, Jr. (1965)

Facts: Arcadio Puesca, Walter Apa, Jose Gustilo, Filomeno Macalinao, Ricardo Dario and Magno Montano were charged with robbery in band with homicide.

During trial, while Sgt. Bano was testifying as prosecution witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by Puesca, he said that Puesca admitted his participation in the offense and revealed the name of other persons who conspired with him. Counsel for Macalinao, Gustilo and Dario objected to the naming of the co-conspirators. Trial judge resolved the objection directing the witness to name the co-conspirators other than the 3 objectors.

Issue: WON the witness should be allowed to name all the conspirators as stated to him by Puesca

Held: Yes

Ratio: While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement.

For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca mentioned the names of his co-conspirators, the evidence should be admitted but with the understanding that the testimony shall not be taken as competent evidence to show that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca.

People v. Brioso, 37 SCRA 336 (1971)

People v. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649 (1989)

Leake v. Hagert, 175 N.W.2d 675 (1970)

U.S. v. Zenni, 492 F. Supp. 464 (1980)