Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010.

FACTS:
Basilisa, Alberto, Leoncio and Alejandra inherited a parcel of land
from their deceased father. The siblings agreed thatthe land be titled in
the name of Basilisa, the eldest sibling. Such agreement did not intend to
make Basilisa the soleowner of the subject land. When Basilisa died, the
land title was transferred to the names of Basilisa’s children
(Modesta,Filemon, Venancia, Marcelina, Monica, Gregorio, Bienvenido).
 
According to Basilisa’s siblings, Basilisa, during her lifetime, informed
them that an affidavit was already executed by her recognizing and
specifying that her brothers Alberto and Leoncio, and her sister Alejandra
would each get one fourth (1⁄4) share of the lot. Hence, the siblings filed a
complaint for partition. The MTCC dismissed the complaint on the ground
that affidavit allegedly executed by Basilisa had no evidentiary value
because the affiant was not presented on the witness stand, such that all
the statements made in her affidavit were hearsay. This was affirmed by
the RTC and the CA. Before the SC, the siblings argued that Basilisa's
sworn statement is a declaration against interest, which is a recognized
exception to the hearsay rule.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sworn statement of Basilisa is a declaration

against interest.

RULING:
The SC said NO, it was not a declaration against interest. Instead, it
was an admission 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.
 In this case, Basilisa is respondents' predecessor-in-interest and is,
therefore, in privity with the latter's legal interest, the former's sworn
statement, if proven genuine and duly executed, should be considered as
an admission against interest.

Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111692 February 9, 1996

FACTS:
During a benefit dance at Dump Site, Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. was
witnessed by Alberto Toling and Honorio Osok who knew him for quite
some time to have stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife
Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. and his uncle Felicisimo contends that it was Zoilo
Fuentes, Jr. a.k.a "Jonie" who did it and fleed but it was dismissed because
only hearsay.

The RTC finds the accused guilty of murder qualified by treachery and
imposed on him an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months of reclusion temporal as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of
Malaspina the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay P8,300.00 as actual
damages plus costs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty.

RULING:

Petitioner points to an alleged inconsistency between the testimonies

of prosecution witnesses Alberto Toling and Honorio Osok to the effect that
they saw petitioner stab Malaspina on the right lumbar region, and the
testimony of the attending physician that the victim was stabbed on the
left lumbar region. This discrepancy is inconsequential. What is material is
that Malaspina was stabbed to death and that three (3) prosecution
witnesses positively identified petitioner as the knife wielder. It must be
stressed that these witnesses had known petitioner for quite some time
and never had any personal misunderstanding nor altercation with the
latter as to create any suspicion that they were impelled by ill motives to
falsely implicate him.

Declaration against interest, exception to the hearsay rule. One of

the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is that pertaining to
declarations made against interest. (Sec. 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court) The admissibility in evidence of such declaration is grounded on
necessity and trustworthiness.

There are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a

declaration against interest: (a) the declarant must not be available to
testify; (b) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the declarant;
and (c) the circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to
falsify existed.

In the instant case, we find that the declaration particularly against

penal interest attributed to Zoilo Fuentes Jr. is not admissible in evidence
as an exception to the hearsay rule. One striking feature that militates
against the acceptance of such a statement is its patent untrustworthiness.
Zoilo who is related to accused-appellant had every motive to prevaricate.
The same can be said of accused-appellant and his uncle Felicisimo. But
more importantly, the far weightier reason why the admission against
penal interest cannot be accepted in the instant case is that the declarant
is not "unable to testify." There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead,
mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent which Sec. 38 obviously
contemplates. His mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him
ipso facto unavailable under this rule. For it is incumbent upon the defense
to produce each and every piece of evidence that can break the
prosecution and assure the acquittal of the accused. Other than the
gratuitous statements of accused-appellant and his uncle to the effect that
Zoilo admitted having killed Malaspina, the records show that the defense
did not exert any serious effort to produce Zoilo as a witness. Thus, for this
case at least, exclusion is the prudent recourse.