5.

Hearsay rules

RULE 130, Section 37. Hearsay – Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a
trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion
or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible
except as otherwise provided in these Rules.

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination
concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under
oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a disposition; (b) consistent with
the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent
fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or
her.

a. Meaning of hearsay
Hearsay evidence is defined as "evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard
from others." The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has
told him, whether orally or in writing.1

b. Reason for exclusion of hearsay evidence

A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., which are
derived from his own perception; otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay. 2

The exclusion of hearsay evidence is anchored on three reasons:

(1) absence of cross-examination;
(2) absence of demeanor evidence; and
(3) absence of oath.3

Rationale: Excluding hearsay also aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the
original declarant claiming to have a direct knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. If hearsay is
allowed, the right stands to be denied because the declarant is not in court. It is then to be stressed that the
right to cross-examine the adverse party's witness, being the only means of testing the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies, is essential to the administration of justice. 4

1
People v. Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, 09 May 2003.
2
People v. Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. No. 123676, 20 May 1998.
3
Dantis v. Maghinang, G.R. No. 191696, 10 April 2013
 c. Exceptions to hearsay rule

i. Dying declaration

Requisites:
(1) The declaration is that of a dying person;
(2) It was made under the consciousness of an impending death;
A belief in the mind of the declaration, at the time the declarations are made,
that death is near is indispensable to the admission of such statements as dying
declarations. Where the text of the declaration shows that the deceased himself
was in doubt as to whether he would die or not, the dying declaration is not
admissible.5
(3) Wherein said dying person’s death is the subject of inquiry; and
(4) It is offered as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

Under People v. Rarugal 6, it is not required that the declarant did not die immediately after he was able to
state the circumstances of his injury or the identity of his assailant, to wit:

“It is of no moment that the victim died seven days from the stabbing incident and after receiving
adequate care and treatment, because the apparent proximate cause of his death, the punctures in
his lungs, was a consequence of appellant’s stabbing him in the chest.”

ii. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind

Requisites:
(1) The action is against an executor, administrator or other representative of a deceased person or
person of unsound mind;
(2) The claim is against the estate;
(3) A party or assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a
matter of fact occurring before the death of the decedent or before the person became of unsound
mind;
(4) The statement is trustworthy.

4
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Bersamin, J. Re: Verified Complaint dated 13 July 2015 of Alfonso Umali v.
Hon. Hernandez, IPI NO. 15-35-SB-J, 23 February 2016.
5
People v. Dominguez, L-22474, Nov. 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 59.
6
G.R. No. 188603, 16 January 2013.
 Dead Man’s Statute
The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying
by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of
giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.7

In any event, what the Dead Man’s Statute proscribes is the admission of testimonial evidence upon a claim
which arose before the death of the deceased. The incompetency is confined to the giving of testimony.8

iii. Declaration against interest

Requisites:
(1) The declarant is deceased or unable to testify;
(2) The declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the declarant;
(3) The circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed.9

Declaration against interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to
the suit, are secondary evidence and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule.10

Rationale: A man’s acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him,
for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if they do not. 11

Question: Does a statement embodied in a recording fall under this rule?

Answer: No. As a further qualification, object evidence, such as a videotape, must be authenticated by a
special testimony showing that it was a faithful reproduction.12

Admissions against interest vis-à-vis Declarations against interest

Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified
in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness.
Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to
the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible only
when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.13

Extent of the declarant’s interest

7
Sunga-Chan v. Chua, G.R. No. 143440, 15 August 2001.
8
Sanson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127745, 22 April 2003.
9
Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111692, 09 February 1996.
10
Unchuan v. Lozada, et al., G.R. No. 172671, 16 April 2009.
11
United States v. Ching Po, 23 Phil. 578, 583 (1912).
12
Unchuan v. Lozada, supra.
13
Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, 15 April 2010.
 To include all kinds of interest, that is, pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal.14

iv. Act or declaration about pedigree

Requisites:
(1) The declarant is deceased or unable to testify;
(2) The declaration is in respect of the pedigree of another person;
(3) Such other person is related to him or her by birth, adoption, marriage; or
(4) The declarant is intimately associated with the family of such other person that he is
likely to have accurate information about his or her pedigree;
(5) The declaration occurred before the controversy; and
(6) The relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.

General Rule: Where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant and
declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's estate, the relationship of the declarant to the
common relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be some independent proof of this
fact.15

Exception: The requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the
relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to
establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other member of the family. 16

v. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

Requisites:
(1) that there is a controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of the members of a family;
(2) that the reputation or tradition of the pedigree existed previous to the controversy; and
(3) that the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person must be a
member of the family of said person.17

Pedigree - includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and places where
these facts occurred and the names of relatives.18

14
People v. Bernal, G.R. No. 113685, 19 June 1997.
15
Tison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027, 31 July 1997.
16
Supra.
17
People vs. Llanita, G.R. No. 134101, 05 September 2001.
18
Supra.
 vi. Common reputation

Requisites:
(1) Existing previous to the controversy;
(2) As to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community; and
(3) Reputation as to events of general history important to the community; or
(4) Respecting marriage or moral character. 19

Note: Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. 20

vii. Part of the res gestae

Res gestae refers to:

(1) Statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime; and
(2) Said statement was uttered immediately before, during, or after its commission.

These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion,
without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An important consideration is
whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert
the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation. 21

viii. Records of regularly conducted business activity

Electronic Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule

A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses,
made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of
information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business
activity, and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.22

Need for Authentication for Private Documents

19
Rule 130, Section 43, Rules of Court.
20
Supra.
21

22
Sec. 1, Rule 8, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC (Rules on Electronic Evidence), 17 July 2001.
 The party offering the private document must first show, to the satisfaction of the court, that it was duly
executed by the person who is claimed to have executed it.23

ix. Entries in official records

Requisites:
(1) Made by a public officer of the Philippines, or a person specially enjoined by law;
(2) Made in the performance of his/her duty; and
(3) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have
been acquired by him personally or through official information.24

Note: Entries in official records are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not
conclusive.25

Authentication of documentary evidence does not apply to public documents.26

Rationale:
(1) Said documents have been executed in the proper registry and are presumed to be valid and
genuine until the contrary is shown by clear and convincing proof; and,
(2) Because public documents are authenticated by the official signature and seals which they bear
and of which seals, courts may take judicial notice.27

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered
therein.28

x. Commercial lists and the like

A document is a commercial list if:

23
Separate Opinion of CJ Bersamin, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188881, 21 April 2014.
24
Africa v. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., No. L-12986, 31 March 1966, 16 SCRA 452, citing Moran, Comments on the Rules of
Court, Vol. 3, 1957 Ed., p. 398.
25
People vs. San Gabriel, G.R. 107735, 01 February 1996.
26
Heirs of Ochoa vs. G&S Transport Corporation, G.R. No. 170071, 16 July 2012.
27
Supra.
28
Sec. 19, Rule 132, Rules of Court (old numbering).
 (1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
(2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation; (3) said
compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation, and (4) it is generally used and
relied upon by persons in the same occupation.29

xi. Learned treatises

Requisites:
(1) the court takes judicial notice; or
(2) an expert witness testifies that the writer is recognized in his or her profession as an expert in the
subject.30

xii. Testimony or deposition at a former trial

Rationale:
“Because such testimony has been delivered under the sanction of an oath and subject to the right
of the adverse party to cross-examine the witness giving it, it is not open to the objections
ordinarily urged against hearsay evidence. It is admitted on the principle that it is the best of which
the case admits.

The real basis for the admission of testimony given by a witness at a former trial is to prevent the
miscarriage of justice where the circumstances of the case have made it unreasonable and unfair to
exclude the testimony.”31

xiii. Residual exception

Requisites:
(a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(b) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the
proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and
(c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will be best served by admission of the
statement into evidence.32

Exception: When the proponent does not make it known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the
hearing, or by the pre-trial

d. Independently relevant statements

29
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107518, 08 October 1998.
30
Rosal vs. Toyo, G.R. 213198, 01 July 2019.
31
People vs. Hon. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-33459, 20 October 1983.
32
Rule 130, Sec. 50, Rules of Court.
 Doctrine of independently relevant statements
(1) Evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the
statement itself (a) may constitute a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
such a fact.33
(2) The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a witness
by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually
made.34

6. Opinion rule
General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible.35

Exceptions:
(a) Opinion of expert witness; weight given
Requisites:
(1) That the opinion is on a matter requiring
- special knowledge,
- skill,
- experience,
- training, or
- education
(2) That the expert witness is known to possess the abovementioned.36

Note: The testimony of expert witnesses must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in
favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it. 37

Weight Given to Expert Witness Testimony

(1) The use of the word "may" signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is
permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does
not mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness.38

(2) The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the
court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails,
the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness
33
Espeneli vs. People, G.R. No. 179535, 09 June 2014.
34
Republic vs. Heirs of Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030, 03 December 2002.
35
Rule 130, Sec. 51, Rules of Court.
36
Rule 130, Sec. 52, Rules of Court.
37
People vs. Basite, G.R. No. 150382, 02 October 2003.
38
Tabao vs. People, G.R. No. 187246, 20 July 2011.
 and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is
not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.39

(3) The probative value of an expert testimony does not lie in a simple exposition of the
expert's opinion. Rather, its weight lies in the assistance that the expert witness may afford the courts
by demonstrating the facts which serve as a basis for his opinion and the reasons on which the logic of
his conclusions is founded.40

(b) Opinion of ordinary witness

Subject matters to which the opinion of an ordinary witness may be received:
(1) identity of a person to whom he/she has adequate knowledge;
(2) handwriting with which he/she has sufficient familiarity;
(3) mental sanity of a person with whom he/she is sufficiently acquainted; and
(4) Impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.41

Note: A non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of another, when based upon
conversations or dealings which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact
bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness’ own knowledge and observation, he having first
testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed facts, as the basis for his opinion. 42

7. Character evidence

Definition of character
Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing
him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the
people who are acquainted with him; his reputation.43

General Rule: Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of
proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.44

Exceptions:
a. Criminal cases
39
People vs. Baid, G.R. No. 129667, 31 July 2000.
40
People vs. Florendo, 68 Phil. 619, 624 (1939), citing United States v. Kosel, 24 Phil 594 (1913).
41
Sec. 53, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
42
People v. Duranan, 402 Phil 205 (2001) citing V. J. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, pp.
735, 736 (1997).
43
People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, 29 May 2002.
44
Sec. 54, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
 (1) Character of the offended party – if it tends to establish the degree of probability or
improbability of the offense charged.45
(2) Good moral character of the accused may be proved. However, his/her bad moral character
may not be proven.
Exception to the exception: Upon rebuttal46

Definition of good moral character

"Good moral character" includes:
- all the elements essential to make up such a character;
- among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional
intercourse;
- a character that measures up as good among people of the community in which the
person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen;
- that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.47
b. Civil cases
Evidence of moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue
of character involved in the case.48

c. Criminal and civil cases

General Rule: Evidence of good character of a witness is not admissible.
Exception:
(1) When such character is impeached;
(2) When the trait or character of a person is an essential element of the charge,
claim or defense

Admissible proof as to the character or trait of a person:

(1) By testimony as to reputation; or
(2) By testimony in the form of an opinion.

8. Judicial affidavits
Judicial Affidavit Rule: A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
Purposes:
(1) Case decongestion;
(2) To reduce the time needed to take witnesses’ testimonies

45
Supra.
46
Supra.
47
People vs. Lee, supra.
48
Sec. 54, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
 “The Judicial Affidavit Rule was particularly created to solve the following ills brought about by
protracted litigations, such as, the dismissal of criminal cases due to the frustration of
complainants in shuttling back and forth to court after repeated postponements; and the dearth of
foreign businessmen making long-term investments in the Philippines because the courts are
unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, thereby keeping the people
poor.”49

Judicial Affidavit vis-à-vis Demurrer to Evidence

Both the Judicial Affidavit Rule and Demurrer to Evidence can co-exist harmoniously as tools for a more
efficient and speedy administration of trial procedures. On the one hand, the Judicial Affidavit Rule simply
dispenses with the direct testimony, thereby reducing the time at which a case stands for trial, in the same
way that the Demurrer to Evidence abbreviates proceedings by allowing the defendant to seek for an early
resolution of the case should the plaintiff be unable to sufficiently prove his complaint. 50

a. Scope
All actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts;
Exception: Small claims cases
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate
Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence,
including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to
disapproval of the Supreme Court.51

Exception from the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule:

(1) Government employee;
(2) Requested witness, who is neither a witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness
(unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the
relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court)

49
Lagon vs.Velasco, G.R. No. 208424, 14 February 2018.
50
Lagon vs. Velasco, supra.
51
Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 1.
 Remedy: Subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Section 21 of the Rules of
Court52

b. Submission in lieu of direct testimony

When: Five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to the
motions and incidents
Mode: Filing to the court and service to the opposing party personally or by licensed courier service 53

c. Contents
(1) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(2) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the
place where the examination is being held;
(3) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so
under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(4) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(a) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(b) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(c) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(d) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(5) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized
by law to administer the same.54

d. Offer and objection

Party presenting the JA: Shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the
witness
Adverse party: may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers
Ground: Inadmissibility55

e. Application in criminal cases

(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or

52
Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 5.
53
Supra, Sec. 2.
54
Supra, Sec. 3.
55
Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 6.
 (3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are. 56

f. Effect of non-compliance
Effect of failure to comply: Result to a waiver of the submission of the required judicial affidavits and
exhibits.57
Remedy: The court may, upon valid cause shown, allow the late submission of the judicial affidavit, subject
to specific penalties, constituting a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos (Php 1,000.00), nor more than
Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00), at the discretion of the court.58

56
Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 9.
57
Lagon vs. Velasco, supra.
58
Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 10.