Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • IV. Rule 130 Part 3 - Bathan

    Uploaded by

    Marti N Baccay
    25 views24 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    25 views24 pages

    IV. Rule 130 Part 3 - Bathan

    Uploaded by

    Marti N Baccay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    esto RAES ON Evoence r Jon, whieh a sn yor which cae ot seas cl oc which cau St ce withdrawn, admissi a,x epg athe by our Ss cae» wt Med na ee ne heen hey cmt pe he fended ary and the prone 22 Sed y el cou 1 plead git ey we yh veces lied in the ffense eget ere wes ce i pedal) toon leseroflense after wae arcret ean are ah ae a ene eso remnant oe oat as wery the acted aed ihe cera nation dapoanon era seen pal wal nes the dled oe Tae cme wo oly omega Sr ne per charge ™ oe fbr, ht fhe plea of sulky is withdrawn or eee ye rosecstion or bythe Cou, the offer of hse pty toa leer offense is not admissible iy true pan the acased who made the plea or offer theme no pon inh o het right mind would enter fine beet pln arghin which later on Hf noe ac Nores mo Cases 155 Ii et Semen he rhe cen ro Sections 1 and 2 of Role 118 of the 2000 spe eta et sore furthermore thatthe same rule and reasoning ap edeny statement ade inthe course of plea bargain Stor prveetion, which does. mot result in a plea of "yar wich ess In a plea of guilty later withdrawn. 2) dea a evidence an offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an lau, is not admissible in evidence as proof of (ier criminal lability for the injury. (27a) Ne, dar an offer to pay oF the payment of media, lupo other expenses occasioned by An injury i ot simile ia ehdence as peoot of chal er enminalhabiliey fetemay $e.28, Admission by third party. — The rights if pary cannot be prejudiced by an aet, decla- ‘ston, or omission of another, except as herein. ster provided. (28) ‘Ths self explanatory See. 30, Admission by co-partner or agent. — to_make_a statement omerning the subject, oF within the scope of Nisgrher authority, and during the existence of eyseo Rats ov Evoence rip oF HEE MAY be ce chp afer the 2S In Sir tony idence gh sae etn These rate ae Moet or declaration of a Joint owner, ya Scere meses Jn ncercany the party (298) i ae a a ‘tho, anf dunng the existence of the partnership er eric en epee sn pry alte he parenership of agency gait Te A Sea oie = ust also be proved. ot Sec.31, Admission by conspirator. — The act or decartion of a conspirator in_furtherane the conspicacy and during its existence may be riven In evidence against the co-conspirator iter the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such ot of declaration. (30a) ar hte ul refers to statements made by one con spo dr he pendency ofthe ual enterprises ar (pseu) andi farteanee of is obec, snd no tot Neves wocases 1s made lng after the conspiracy had been brought petted ‘he dine of 7 inter alias acta alten nocere non de trike things done between strangers ought net tonne Sent are nt prcs tthe’. resale emma tt re eae, crv nen Sm er no aPopeng Sees ore aed ni cor mnt mo [zeuc and decaragons, Yer it would nr only be agi seem ceanleh e Sn ea ce ciel pee eee ee en ears mae me An eception tothe ret inter los acta rule isan admis- sen made BY a conspirator under Section 21 of Rue 130, feta or declaration ofa eonspaator in furtherance of Se tnsprae and during ie existence: may be given in frie aganst te co-consprsor after the consplaey I Shon by evdence other than such act of declaration, Thus eee aera Pere iene a ee eco t ehan 8ORPEOT yb i ams ea ere pie proved BY ence ther shan he Sar ao roe comm ae Pe hrberane see tea me vn Se a min etd i ete cond wih the nt ce OO mac hen = RD secrete arisen ra eh da Boece mel el man grea sn en a oor ue, hr if the exerajudical confessions were inde sy mae wthout clluson, and are sential with pr eer mater espcts and confirmatory of the Steyn coder interlocking confessions" They (e'lamoale a eveunaantal evidence against thei co ‘Sed implcned teen t0 show the probability of the (Ser eta pucpason ithe commission of the exe They nea admabe as coroboraive evidence apne Deak beg cas fom other facts And eemstanes esd tt pesons oer than the dears themes eae the commission of the rime charged and bac als i on oe ple Bonfaci Cabal, Eusebio Ebreo Ester Pamala fardo Un, Ricardo Miranda and Eade Pajeola {GR No, 86220, Apel 20, 1990 ‘the acused were Gaver" employees in his gas sation ‘yn tong tha he was losing toney inthe Business, be Werte saron to sscealn why he was losing movey. ines nerd he easier, Eusebio, to read the pomp meter, ‘Gonibe money rom the sales and submit eo him. He and fhe competed the sales and both of their computations Some tne there was a shortage of 35.5 lees of regular ‘alver asked Ebreo to explain the shorage but it ‘SS ecsed Ricardo Lim stho rephied tha he ssw appellant Bens place tha quantity of gasoline in two containers. aver ordered Ebro to get the bag of Cobal because he seed that the payment of the mising gasoline might rebeen placed inthe bug Ereo go he bag and puto ‘pats mi and Gaver nodced that Eteo took something ‘nthe bag and pur ie under the mat. Gaver tok what fhe plced under the mate tre out to be a PCT Bank ‘eke Cal with epost of 800.00 entered on May 28, {ed anter amount of P500.00 entered therein thereaer ‘ine ated Clbal where he got the money which he ‘nthe bank Instead of ANSWETINE the gueyy, anna om, ont ame Se nce by hem om the ures etary et sm meee aver ll for se Pajmola and asked her about the co Semen of Cbal and Paola answered ey re vuther stated thatthe las adjustment a they we fone on May 28, 1981 when accused Edd pend scwsed Franesco Escala took 300 liters an SR re the spas was PIS000. She stated futher tot ORT iment of the meter was done 1 March vo ead om lve aay shage fom the money reaheed Pe Si adunimen: bt se had ben sharing for the ast resolved that several adjustments of the meer ‘Sip te ben done y te group. ber ese admited having received pare of the cuy eed bythe group fom the adjustments of the er ag cae these amasions, Galver brought all the ae cued te pole sinion for investigation, except Zaléy ln win an avay and sac then ad not Been reporang former sey ein Dying, auditor ofthe gas station hited by Cates nd ou tht the sation had incurred a Toss ta lingi888821 ee be ease 5 filed in court accused Ester Pajmola ‘Saher and asked fo forpveness and fold him eer ling to workin the sation witout any compen te onder that she wl ay foc her she. reo also aed aera inguted why he Gales) wat at ng wth the ease When he ad the other accused have 300000 each vo Judge Collado. Galvez told Ebreo that pl ected any amount fom the smouns paid DY yale Collado forthe veement ofthe ease vin isthe legal effect of the abore admissions of ac- wel bono Gaba, Eisebo Ebeo and Ester Pahmola? ales aed to establish through his testimony that a yo nq of adausion by silence, that «He must hase heard or observed the actor dela: thm ofthe ober person: + ems have had the opportunity deny it 1 Me must have understood the stement, 4 He must ave an interest to abject as he would url ave done ifthe statement was nt tue; 1 the faces are within his knowledge; and 1 The fat adie or the inference to be draven fom sence s material othe ste. te i not sot thatthe ether appellants were present sat hed the admissions against them, chat they Bad the ‘Speney to deny the same: tht they must have under (Meth strements and that the fats are within their LStege Indeed, even accused Clobal who allegedly see RULES ON Ev0oce we ea dents one a si opel it sen eden a Teor se ving eimai he Jes of te leven oy es pe 0 be B1183855.21 asey 2 8 YRlnwcned Deember 18, 1981 But its admingge’ ME se i al court Heaay and mac beme ah eel him dri he pod were nx a Seas esse cc peeee eer carat ce aoa ter ci ies ae eee petite Leder arate pee ha see cnet ‘The pseation has aso filed to establish the loss and core amoun which is an essential element of the terse quid theft All accused were ordered neque byte igh Cour See. 32. Admission by privies. — Where one derives tite to property from another, the lat: Notes wo Cases 163 ‘act, declaration, oF omission, in relation to wei operty, is evidence against the former if Jatter was holding the title, (31a) tn Technges Philipines Manufacturing Corporation ¥. acy, GR Na 108894, February 10, 1997, olving 8 “ape, the High Cour sad that theres no ques. eit when peiloner purchased the land form Pane ‘hanes the bling and other sructures were already in Te eord bn derma bat Src, but i may well be assumed that pedtoners ‘reser ners, Pari Indes, dd so. Arce S27 of Scat ode presumes good faith, and since vo pool exes ‘Show tate encroachment over narrow, needle shaped meal pat respondents and was done in bad faith by ‘Serf the eneoochng sere, the late should Be feed vo have bulk them in ood faith Ks presumed {posession conics be enjoyed inthe same Sarat SSubcht was acquired, unl the contay proved. Good ‘Shotts the elt ofthe baler tha fe land be pulag on hi ad his ignorance of any defect ofa in ‘Save. Hence, such good faith, by lnm, passed on to Pale’ ‘cv, petsioner inthis ease’ Prter, whee one drives Seppe fom anotber, the a, decaation, or om sont the Ler, while holding the tle, i relation tothe Dan, 8 evidence agaist the fomer” And possesion ‘pel good faith doesnot lose this characte exept in {Sead fom the moment fs exit which show thatthe pssesor wot unaware that he peseses the thing improp- {yee wrongly. The good fash eeses fom the moment Sein the tle ae made known to the posessn by twat eres by sao recey ote popes BY dasion by silence. — An see 33, Adm act of made in the presence and wisn terain Spseretion of a arty who en teeming when the actor declaration jn {atraly 0 call or aetlon oF comment pact mag when proper and pOSsiDIe Tor his ‘e'd vo, may be given In evidence gpm) him oe he. (328) ee ee sa ten ak nen eae Pale He mst bine head or Observed the act oF deca, tote other peso, «ters hve ad he opportunity co deny ea 1 et hve uadersood the statement; + He mus fave an interes £0 Object as he wou fay hve done ihe statement was nots + Te faa are within his knowledge, and + Tela admined othe inference toe dravn from [lene mater othe sue ‘The om admision by silence also applies to advese seme wing the party seas carrying on atta ‘Smsonence nth the declarant. Hossever, there wa at ‘sch mite caresposdence tbe rule srelaned on the then fr whe the pay would have immediately reacted by 8 ifthe statements were orally made in his presence, ‘Girne, ere a Snr pote expe sehr to eon Com wniten py nthe case of Villouew v=. Balaguer ond nercontneat ang Caporation Channel-13, GAN. 180197. ine Seow, peuvoner urged respondents wo confirm or deny if 2S person alluded to in the ‘news arte the fexeetve of TBG13 who was dismised for sling erifites of performance, but none of the respor [Svreled wo the eter. Respondents were sued for dam Feasoner claimed that respondents caused the publica ‘Siifiberbjet news ails which defamed him by falely ‘Eifaaloouly refering to him as the INC-12 eperatons ‘Elotne ho tld forged certiates of performance and SSn tang these fase and salicour publicattons, re ‘Mouenswlned Arties 19, 20, 21, and 26 of the Chat oe toleguer denied that he had anything to do with the testons However, he argued thatthe publications are [hamnsble Beanse they are ue and without malice; are ‘Tipumate poe concern and interest because TBC 16 (bier soquestauon. that petuoner i a newsworthy and pubic figure, and that they are privileged” commnication, Ffspar.19C 13 denied parcpation inthe publications I (hd that assuming press statements were foued during & fret eoference, the same seas done soley by Balaguer ‘Shoat authonty or sanction. Inthe RTC, Villanueva wo, Fars ne ca. ne ofthe sues sised inthe High cours Was the ad sssea by a principal admissible against its agent Is the ‘son by a person oily unersted wah «party admis espe theater Thellgh Cou i tetera ot repo wo ne TET Spe red nes epi Me sa and ne nee ropa ae wate mae sated there Se sy olen se hae und the Sable py oe 3 Nerul hon vce eee core othe Pursuant tow Seven een aes mon wapenm r enieonis ‘or natural has no effect as an admisston - ee, tere on admission by slence applies wo rene aes in ert the party was ern {eum cunerpondence with the declan How (her tee wos sich ml correspondence te Se eed on the theory hae Whe the pany {e tve mmedney trated by a denial aie Sees ere eal made ia Ris presence, sich Front tspem in generally not be expected he Ponvmlnin eset a en eeply ‘ony sence on the pat of Balaguer by virtue of it ‘Sle ret ods eheatbuton to ht by ores no cases 1 the nowapapers that hee the source ofthe artes As ‘pine! ave the rule on admission by nlenee face te eens at de ay moses reece oF when one ll at to teen ta 4 nse Ep ot when theres o maa cacrespondence (hewn he pes As fore pobiations themselves, newspaper ares puorang to sate what the defendant mid ae nad ne apaost tin, ine he cannot beheld respon She othe wesings of rd persone Ascott ob Sened by the Coun of Appeals, “whe the subject ‘eo ens indicated cat Balaguer was the source af the columnists, proving that he uly. made such Siemens is haar mance” Petioner fed 10 [owe ht Balaguer id make such statements” (len, Sons omited) se W. Confession. — The declaration of an secwsed acknowledging his or her guilt of the tease charged, oF of any offense necessarily induded therein, may be given in evidence ‘mins him or her. (33 a) that fhe confession i extrajudicial one, it may eyes im endence an favor or agaist the confessant £0 leg urthe taking i in line withthe requirements of the Creston and he Riles of Cour we fuer, that “confession” is ot synonymous wth ‘ao Acorn to Mr Justce Carson, the tem confession” ‘ecaton mace at any te by person. vluntay and ‘tt emulsion or ndement, ating or acknowledging sett ppl comin seit eral applied in cme ne ee ied et a o “ibe gilt of th ae Se mates oe gu of he acs og ae ene tk Seek on™ 4. Previous Conduct as Evidence as fa — so gamer ite, tn se sie ice eco cis re wt eo rt an = ine, han sce cannot be found uty of one cameo sub cored the same rime belore™ ine foe, at 8 rae, evidence 8 not admissible wh hws ted show, hat te accused in iin (es comated 4 cme wholly dependent of the ef wich hon ta ot competent to prone ‘rhe came oer cries of a tke nature forthe Fase shoving ht he commited the crime charged it Seven or somstion An exception to this ae ‘heh eden tends dietly to establish the pace tre and taal competent to prove the motive, he the absence of mistake or aciden, a comsmon shee 2 anaes the commision of two oF mote eres 30 ren other that poo of one tends to estblch the ‘eee entity ofthe person charged withthe commie eee sme on eal te Gna ot al ws OA and Spouses Malas, GR. No aot hb 27, 1998, said that evidence of simiar acs or Bune compel the defendant to meet allegations that sSimentoned ih the complain, confuces him in is EE tases avait of ielevant iases, and divers the ‘Sion of the cure fom the issues immediately before iow, ths evidentiary cule guards against the pracial (emeseneof tying collateral sss and protacting the ‘i's evens surprise or ather mischief prejudicla t0 [Bins The rule, bowever, is not without exception, ikem admisble in general, eolsteral facts may Be re ‘Seas vdence under exceptional circumstances, as when ‘Se u's vatonal similanty or resemblance between the alma ging ive to the fct offered and the circum SS sutounding the issue oF fact to be proved ™ Ev eo sma ats may frequently become relevant, espe ‘Shy inacions based on fraud and dec, because i sheds len he ate of mind or knowledge of person, ie pro. ‘Seng to such person's modve or intent uncovers & ‘ene design or plan ort reveals mistake Inmople vs Losana, GR No. 127122, uly 20, 1999, the sued who was charged ith qualified tape, admited Tepe tagae GX Na 9286.64 See 19). reves RUss On Evcence fe teal he PURER 10 ey ase Sy inebter onl proves that such cag? MS al oy te scsedappelan «cme fer ee see 6, Unacepted offer. — AD Offer in wetting Soar a particular sum of money oF to deliver = tata instrument oF specifle personal proper wri ieced without valid cause, equivatenr ty the etal production and tender of the money Instrument, or property. (35) : inet 9 fer i wring to pay a particular sum of nat tn cuer a wtennsrument or specie persone, te mde aod vcd without valid cause thar Fat tothe ain! production and tender” of the yma, © POPE The iy pase here “equivalent tothe actual prod onan ed he mone, rumen, oF Property 36, Tesmony generall ed 5 Inowiedge: Rearsay excluded, (Tra posed 10 Ses. 22. Testimony confined to per: sonal Anowledge Hearsay Hs Js a statement 1 Be mals by cheese a aa ing, offered to-prove facis asserted therein A an oral or written assertion of (2) 8 or her 9. Hearsay evid except as otherwise i peels. easy eidece 1 evidence, not of what the witness ums Du of what he has hear from ethers: not Sr maed eo oral testimony or statements but Ukewise hast einen sazement dence is hearsay when its probative force depends, in wide ein par, on the competency and credibly of some ‘Sos oer than the witness by whom Ie i sought to be EXGd™ Mere are three reasons for excluding hearsay Riser (2) absence of cross examination, (2) abner of ‘emo endence: and (3) absence of oath >= une, a witness can testi only to those faces that se Inns of her personal knowledge, that i which are {Ed om he on perception, except as otherwise pro- el the Rules ef Court =" He or she may not tes a 6 revo RULES ON EvceNcE So. atch eta peta sare ened cl he ech apps ot only (0 oral testimony. par” deceit a trien evidence as well ered wha ay rule based upon serious eoncerny ve ees and reabity of hearsay evidence eo the arr edece ae 04 B10 Under oath ory ss wh ooe importa, have not been wast atcomcraminacion bY opposing COURSE 10 test the pere ‘octet an acuatenss of the outa eo up hos eabity on Which the Sree oes mua “= Sp tee time is iia ta he aa ep por ln sm ussruyr Cx se cng 0 Conn nn Sires See pte rulers tne fanrece Gy. Coun say gee Crm neuen Seton 216 (2). ib ores nocases 1" but from the veracity and competency ofthe exta sa ce of er information at, hat the eheory of che hearsay rule is that when a teerace 1s offered as evidence ofthe truth ofthe fact vey ihe credit of the assertor becomes the basis of ‘and, therefore, the assertion can be received a3 sie when ade on the witness Sand, subject to the exgacssxamination.* une freer, that a hearsay evidence, whether objected le« xt has no probative value unless the proponent can thatthe evidence falls within the exceptions to the ‘fay eidnce rule” ze hemor; hat whe wis permite sch mse on what she has heard another person sty about ‘Pies im depute, the peron from ‘whom the witness ‘Eyed information on the fees in espe Is tn court ‘EX oath o Be examined and crose examined hen the ‘of sch tesimony depends noe upon the veracity of {rues but upon the verncy’of the other person giving ‘SEwomaton to the witness ethout oath, The nforsation ‘SSonted heray an cannot be teed Beetse the del ‘ore uc sandng In cout as a witness and cannot, thee (ee bers examined ™ Sp Fae gre ‘roe Pr er "oo Pps FNOC Shipping and Tana Crpcton ‘chan tan Eigen Pains Comers CA Na TOPs, Ghee ‘puting ne Ame Corpor e CA27 Pi 8367 Pie ang dapan CAC No" 917, Sqeeaber 11988, 26 Ere ree Pde pre povsco Russ Ov Evoence re conurig and Dissenting Opinion of a tnt om taer on became the Chief Juste teas opie cing hs ConcurTing ad Dy Opin AN fe ecg Cowes about th Juste ice Sena io taan, Set anay a evidence is based ups eat mstwortiness and reliability of perce heap seni eli emt Sh de mgs ene welt Pen rei ne eso a ic ie amare cat of cnn ey sig Serene pm aos Toe cr, personal knowledge isa substantive pe. requ fr aceping testimonial eidence to cy {SMe uth of dspated fat. The Court amply ex pied hn Paula Peopl: “Tose why xxx hearsay evidence was ure Die and acworth, and thus devoid of rob fe ale rence f made to Section 26 of Rule 10 Fle of Cure are hat states that «wines Canvey oly 0 thon facts that she knows ber ores mocases 175 personal knowledge; thats which are derived from fer own pereption, except as otherwise provided tn thefules of Coure The personal Knowledge fof # witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that es. tabllshes the truth of disputed fact. A wit. ness bereft of personal knowledge of the Aisputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpore because her testimony derives {es value not from the credit accorded #0 her as a witness presently testifying. but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information. In case a witness Is permitted to testify ‘based om what she has heard another per. son say about the facts im dispute, the per ‘on from whom the witness derived the In- formation on the facts in dispute is notin ‘court and under ‘oath to be examined and ‘cross-examined. The weight of such testi tony then depends not upon the veracity ‘of the witness but upon the veracity of the ‘ther person giving the information to the ‘witness without oath. The information care ‘Rot be tested because the declarant Is not Standing in court as a witness and cannot, Iherefore, be cross-examined.” {ls apparent, too, that a person who relates 1 hearsay Is not obliged to enter into any par- Hieular, to answer any question, to solve any Alfcuities, to reconelle any contradictions, to explain’ any obseurities, to remove any ammbigultles; and that she entrenches herself Inthe simple assertion that she was told s0, and leaves the burden entirely upon the dead fr absent author. Thus, the rule against hear: revaco RUS Ov EvoENcE Se eta a SVRTC Sppaenats, ome tne he declarant he esting on fave been ven under oath and” heyy Sour of jstice but fered agate oe at fered a rer nto ae te same. Morse, the theory of the hearsay rule jy thar when a human utterance is offersie idence of the truth of the fact asserted. at {ret ofthe assertor becomes the basis oft ference, and, therefore, the assertion tan oe received as evidence only when made on we (rtmess stand, subject 10 the test of ern Chamination, However, If an extrajudiciat ee fence is offered, not as an assertion prove the matter asserted but without elec nce tothe truth of the matter asserted, te hearsay rule does not apply. For example: ta {slander case, if prosecution witness test fies that he heard the accused say that the Complainant was a thief, this testimony i imiasible not to prove that the complatnant was really a thief but merely to show that the aeused uttered those words. This kind of utterance is hearsay in character but ls not legal hearsay. The distinction is, therefore, ‘etween (a) the fact that the statement was ‘ade, o which the hearsay rule does not ap- ply, and (b) the truth of the facts asserted Io the statement, to which the hearsay rule ap- ples Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is understandably not the only rule that ex Noves wwe Cases ao plains why testimony that Is hearsay should be excluded from consideration. Excluding hearsay also aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the original declarant claiming to have a direet knowl. fige of the transaction or occurrence, If hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be de- led because the declarant is not in court. It is then to be stressed that the right to cross: ‘examine the adverse party's witness, the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, is essential {the administration of justice. {To address the problem of controling inadmissible easy a evidence to establish the tuth ina dpe wwe also safeguarding a. party's right to cross famine her adversary’s witness, the Rules of Court offers two solutions. The fst solution is to require thar all the wienesses in & judicial ral oF hearing Be ‘examined only in cour under oath or efrmarion See: toa 1, Rule 122 of the Rules of Coure formalizes this soon, is Secuon 1. Examination to be done in open court. The euaminanon of witnesses presented in a tal OF hearing shall be Jone sn open cour, and underoath affimation. Unless the witness ts incapacitated © speak othe question ells for a different mode of an ‘ve, the asvers ofthe witness shall be given erally tay The second solution is 1 requte that ll wimesses be subject to the crass examination by the adverse party Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court ensures ts revezo RASS ON Evcence scien & OCEMIHOR: KF Plrpese ang So jen eatin of the dc i ‘Sai ite ered ye Su Sio ar am mates aed mae gs Come therewith petite sti ‘Soe ttc et cei) ange Sci etom fom meres o a fe nt iota porn Ts bearing pon gee ® eel te eee rin a ee Sern 1), Arce I of the 1987 Contig Sn “al ney ua SET nee ert Soar cancion So Seer ‘We tus sress that the rule excluding hear say as evidence is based upon serious sate ‘ems about the trustworthiness and rellsbi, iy o hearsay evidence due to its not being ‘gen under oath or solemn affirmation and doe to itr not being subjected to. crane ‘examination by the opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and artieu. lajeess of the outof-eourt declarant or actor upon whose reliability the worth of the out. of eour statement depends.” on ones) Secon 36, ule 130 of the Rules of Court is under. sey notte only rule that explains why hearsay” test ‘ay shuld be exuded om consideration. Excluding ‘waray abo ams o preserve the right of the opposing party Notes mnocaces 179 pepe re ene Se eget et pee pherpemre ire hens sd hate secre ers pany ne, bog he Sree oem ey of ess es, fan eral ueranc is offered, not as acinar tm mac Sod bs Share te ‘225Te uth ofthe tater astened, the henry rac des aah coding to Mr. Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (lter on be- antibe Chie Justice), n People vs. Patula (supra), the Rules Fenn offers two solutions to address the problem of ‘oneling inadmissible hearsay as evidence ro esablish the fuhiaa depute while also safeguarding a partys right to fveramine his or her adversary’ witness > Te first solution i to require that all the witnesses in a eal al or hearing be examined only in court under oath {sfimaton —a solution formalized by Section 1, Rule 132 se Rules of Court, tha is, the examination to be done in ont weigh PS mor, cne People Pelawagn, 76 P47 "MO Pe, ere, cig Donney . Und Sate, 228 US ese a a eon 1 ee tat al co steeaton by the adverse no ene cxaminaion *™ That, iy a i ee batons were dened ae ess hs the dect for hearing and is gut shaddon concerning the statem ements (a) i ten : ‘Secu onl of perry t-te neg the declarant of recent fabrication ot 5 a pars le after pereetvh ima bee (8) Noresmocaees te Ameen ot Rersy the delaras at Ast eamg and te sb w eoreeasmaneno Shoe the stent. andthe satement an ot Seer rs pene ade es peeve Sh settee mimes posted eed te eee S21 Palace the Wdenfed perenne i 2 Secon made by that wines dig he ae vd heerme, that teimony of the meee ned Divo comatiutel © xe kage iy Taabenendene InP Nes GR. NO 200342, October 4, 2017, ¢ ws oped thatthe tally of ccunstances tee as Zptes cnidenion ofthe dai of cerany deca ‘Selby the wns atthe moment of idetion The Spon ‘Wha is most eal her the ial identicatin ide by the wines during lnvestigabon and case Bidup. toe dente dung tal A wines cerainy 6 texted in court during ros {eamation In several instances this Court Bas con ‘ler a witness straight and candid seolecson of the teem, undiminished by the gos of rose feaminaton sa indicator feeb Sam, ceramy on the witness stand i by 90 means concane the time a witness takes the mad, Re rsh sal have ly made narrations to ovestign too responding police or barangay offices wo he ble poset. any possible pvate prosecutors, {Othe families ofthe victim, oer sympa and ‘emo the media. The wines, then, may Rave esa eves RES ON EvDENCE ecu, wt bce of oor coy tat cd eecaleton of events but beeen cere jrcement borne by. becomin atc naatons bef a re ee cf can sree esr rhe ore wena ame ital OTN tg cee om ial deniation, na sy agri paced fata «6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule eons tee ee te car the coca os es re ed amy be ecceeas nese nm at don she ae a ae te ioe canoe aa 1a es sch den: (a) suze, ding declaration is admissible as evidence i sefeinang creumstanes are present sreancers the ause and the surrounding citcun (© Soper the delaras death bit ismade when death appears to be imminent and (heer is under a consciousness of impending teat (o) the detarant would have been competent to testi bad hear she survived: and Notes mo cases a ute dying declaration is offered in a case in which fhe subject of inquiry involves the declarant’s eat ce further, thatthe issue of whether a declaration vas der the consciousness of an impending death, i a “endence =" I must be shown that such a declara ‘axis nade under a ealization by the decedent that his borat east mminence and not so much of rapid ‘eteace.wes a hand.°™ ‘This may be proven by the SSiatof the Witim himself or inferred from the nature ‘Sen of his wounds, or other relevant circumstances "= iceuif the vcum did not express in words his conscious: ‘rhs inevitable demise, the nature of his wound, 1e, 3 ‘SpSaund onthe right side ofthe stomach that was cating ‘Rontes loss of blood, indubitably generated a conscious ‘Sits death was near. Judging from the nature and extent ‘Fin, the seriousness of his condition was so appar {Mek ay safely be inferred that his utterances were Sib ander a consciousness of an impending death =" and Shusdemise came only hours thereafter further suggested ‘owt alization ofthe hopelessness of recovery = rei tn os See ee cere te ie eee Bette eter Aeveto RULES OM EvoeNce sone arth ng declaration referred toby dent offered a criminal case for Homicide hefty $eSie eee eran the vicum ve ect, tt ot enero decarton of ie leper mee ea 0 Snes feo oa eg dsr a ets sok ti te eres NOY aera Sn sue fear, that judged By the nature and exent ctsncun be nem mtn fave realized the serine SS mane, and ta canbe safely inferred tse ss he xtraon der the consciousness of impe ‘ih eaaarg tat he ded only one hour af tae o ‘Thedeoae ators thatthe declaration be made under becouse of pending death 1118 this which impars trator to the essentially hearsay character of the cmana — beast, because i some person other than the dened declarant (ofcourse) who testifies to the same 1 caraton made wh awareness of imminent demise, Pap mG 4 Jue 17,2015 ad Pe 1 Ropes hagran $8594 46 1974), People Ae ‘Sipe town Ps ER E971, ced in People Ape Notes a0 Cases ial Estee alt tredela mrts cae eye soc enh che en ln lo ee 2 atoae ge ll md

    You might also like