Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding



Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.—The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.


Requisites for admissibility 

In order to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, this section requires that:

1.  The witness is dead or unable to testify

2.  His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interest

3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action

4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case

5. The adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case


Cross-reference: 

rules on admissions (Rule 130 Secs. 26-33, RC) 
interrogatories (Rule 24, RC)


Cases

Tan v. CA, 20 SCRA 54 (1967) Inability to testify should proceed from a grave cause, almost amounting to death, as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech. Absent a showing that the witness is dead, outside the Philippines, or unable to testify, their prior testimony is inadmissible. Mere refusal to testify is does not amount to inability to testify. The party could have urged to court to have these witnesses summoned, arrested, and punished for contempt in case of refusal to obey the summons.

People v. Liwanag, 73 SCRA 473 (1976)

Facts: The prosecution moved that the testimony of the witnesses presented during the preliminary investigation of this case be adopted as part of the evidence in chief of the prosecution. The trial court granted the motion subject to the condition that the witnesses be further cross-examined by counsel for the accused. At the trial, the witnesses for the prosecution who testified at the preliminary investigation were recalled and were again cross-examined by counsel for the appellant.

Held: The testimony sought to be made part of the evidence in chief are not ex-parte affidavits, but testimony of witnesses taken down by question and answer during the preliminary investigation in the presence of the accused and his counsel who subjected the said witnesses to a rigid and close cross-examination. The inclusion of said testimony was made subject to the right of the defendant to further cross-examine the witnesses whose testimony are sought to be reproduced and, pursuant to said order, the witnesses were recalled to the stand during the trial and again examined in the presence of the appellant. Upon the facts, there was no curtailment of the constitutional right of the accused to meet the witnesses face to face. 

Chantangco vs. Abaroa, 40 Phil 1056. The admissibility of a prior judgment, and not the previous testimony, in a criminal action is governed by different rules. A judgment in a criminal proceeding, and this rule applies with equal, if not greater, force to administrative proceedings, cannot be read in evidence in a civil action against a person not a party thereto to establish any fact therein determined. The matter is res inter alios and cannot be invoked as res judicata. Such judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a civil case by way of inducement, or to show a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action. (City of Manila vs. Meralco, 52 Phil 586)

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980)




Comments
0 Comments

0 comments : on " Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding "

Post a Comment