Questions and Answers (Sections 43 – 54, Rule 130)

1. Estibal was charged for the crime of rape of his 13-year-old daughter,
AAA. On the evening of the morning after the alleged rape, AAA,
assisted by her mother, BBB, went to the office of the Barangay
Security Force (BSF) and reported the incident to BSFs Estudillo and
Perlas. The case was referred to the police station where P03
Cobardo took down the sworn statement of AAA. Based on the sworn
statement, AAA first revealed her ordeal to her cousin DDD. With
DDD’s help, BBB confronted her daughter AAA, who told her that
Estibal did not only rape her that morning, but had sexually abused
her several times. During pre-trial, AAA and her mother, BBB.
desisted saying that AAA had already forgiven her father. Relying on
P03 Cobardo’s testimony of what AAA narrated to her, the RTC
considered the spontaneity of the declarations made by AAA as
confirmed by P03 Cobardo as part of the res gestae, and convicted
Estibal.

On appeal, Estibal maintained that the testimony of P03 Cobardo and

the BSFs, not being victims or witnesses to the “startling occurrence”
of rape, cannot create the hearsay exception of res gestae.

Decide on whether or not the testimony of P03 Cobrado and BSFs

were part of res gestae which is an exception to the hearsay rule.

Answer:
No, the testimony of P03 Cobrado and BSF’s were not part of res
gestae.

The essential requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae

are the following: There is a startling occurrence, a statement was
made while the event is taking place, or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto, the statement was made before the declarant
had time to contrive or devise falsehood and the statement relates to
the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence.

The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is

therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
 characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and
also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony.

In this case, AAA’s statements to the barangay tanod and the police
do not qualify as part of res gestae in view of the missing element of
spontaneity and the lapse of an appreciable time between the rape
and the declarations which afforded her sufficient opportunity for
reflection.
Hence, the testimony of Po3 Cobrado was not part of res gestae.

- Reyes, Joselle

2. A fire broke out at the Lit-It-Up gasoline station. It started while

gasoline was being hose from a tank truck into the underground
storage, right at the opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of
the hose was inserted (a lighted matchstick was thrown by a stranger
near the opening, causing the fire.) The fire spread to and burned the
house of Bo Gok. He then sued Lou Gaw, owner of the Lit-It-Up
gasoline station, for damages. Bo Gok attributed the negligence to
Lou Gaw as the cause of the fire. The counsel of Bo Gok presented
as evidence the Police Report made by PO2 Tililing. However, the
counsel of Lou Gaw objected for its presentation, and claim that the
Police Report is inadmissible being a hearsay evidence. Lou Gaw’s
counsel contended the report of PO2 Tililing contains a reproduced
information given by a certain Harry Joke regarding the history of the
gasoline station and what the chief of the fire department had told him
on the same subject.

Decide on whether the Police Report of PO2 Tililing is admissible in

court as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Answer:
The Police Report of PO2 Tililing is inadmissible as an exception to
the hearsay rule.

One of the requisites in order that entries in official records made in

the performance of his duty by a public officer, to be considered as an
 exception to the hearsay rule, is that the public officer or other person
had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by him, which must have
been acquired by him personally or through official information.
In this case, it is obvious that the material facts recited in the report
as to the cause and circumstances of the fire were not within the
personal knowledge of PO2 Tililing who conducted the investigation.
The facts stated therein were not acquired by reporting officers
through official information, not having been given by the informants
pursuant to a duty to do so.

Hence the report in question is not an exception to the hearsay rule.

- Cambe, Gay Anne

3. Is an article on the web by an expert considered as a learned treatise

and is considered as an exception to the hearsay rule?

Answer:
No. One of the requisite for a learned treatise is that it should be
published. ‘Published’ is one done by publishing houses and intended
for sale or distribution to the public. Such publication, with the
safeguards of editorial and peer review, assures quality and
authoritativeness of the treatise, periodical or pamphlet and guards
against inferior or mediocre material. Such safeguards are not
present in the internet where almost anybody can post an article and
represent himself to be an expert.

- Tablada, Ignatius

4. In a case, the prosecutor asked the medical expert the question,

“Assuming that the assailant was behind the deceased before he
attacked him, would you say that treachery attended the killing?” Is
this hypothetical question permissible?

Answer:
 No, this hypothetical question is not permissible since it asks for his
legal opinion in the case and not on the subject of medicine which he
is an expert.

- Balangue, Rushiane
5. When can the prosecution introduce evidence of an accused’s bad
character?

Answer:
Unless and until the accused gives evidence of his good moral
character, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of his bad
character.

- Tecson, Jimmy