WikiLex

REFERENCES:

Riano, Williard, B., Evidence, The Bar Lecturer Series, 2009 Ed.
Regalado, Florenz D. Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 2, Eighth Ed.
Apostol, Gregorio A.F., Essentials of Evidence, 1991 Ed.
The Supreme Court E-Library at www.sc.judiciary.gov.ph
 THE HEARSAY
EVIDENCE RULE
 WHAT WITNESS MAY TESTIFY ON

 BASIC RULE: Witness may testify only on facts of

his personal knowledge, namely:

 Those facts which are derived from his own

perception.
 WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE:

 Those founded on facts which are derived NOT

from a witnesses’ own perception. (R130:36)

 A definition of hearsay evidence in the Federal

Rule on Evidence is more complete, thus:

 “…a statement, other than the one made by the

declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered
in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
 WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE:

 Thus, while hearsay evidence presupposes lack of personal

knowledge of the truth of the fact asserted by a witness, the
purpose for which the evidence is offered is a vital element
of hearsay evidence.
 It is therefore the purpose for which the evidence is offered
which determines whether it is hearsay.
 If the statement is offered to prove the truth or falsity of the
fact asserted in the statement, then it is hearsay.
 Otherwise, if it is offered to prove that such statement was
made (independently of whether true or not), or to prove the
condition of mind, health, knowledge, belief, ill-will,
intention, emotions, etc. of the declarant, then it is not
hearsay and therefore admissible.
 DOCTRINE OF “INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS”

 Independently Relevant Statements – are those

which are relevant independently of whether they
are true or not.
 Relevant – because the statement is either the very fact in
issue or a circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue.

 Independent – because the truth or falsity of the assertion

is not the issue, but whether the statement was made.

 They are not hearsay and therefore admissible in

evidence.
 KINDS OF “INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS”
1 Those statements which are the very facts in issue;
and

2 Those statements which are circumstantial to the

facts in issue, which includes statements:
a. Showing his state of mind, mental condition, knowledge,
belief, intention, ill-will, and other emotions;
b. Physical condition, illness, and the like;
c. From which and inference on the condition of mind, etc.
can be inferred;
d. Which may identify date, place and person in question;
e. Showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
 ELEMENTS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE:

 There must be an out-of-court statement, in any

form whether:

 Oral, written, or a conduct intended by an actor as an assertion;

 What matters is that the statement was not made by the
declarant in the hearing or trial.

 The statement made out of court is:

a. Repeated [in court] and

b. offered to prove the truth of the matter of asserted in the
statement.
 WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE,
ILLUSTRATION:

COURT DRAMA:

Prosecution: What did you hear from Juan?

Defense: Objection, calls for hearsay testimony.
Judge: Not so fast. Witness may answer.
Witness: Juan said while pointing to Pedro, “You
are a thief! You stole my money! You are
a liar!
Judge: Overruled.

NOTE here that what is sought to be proved (PURPOSE) is the

making of the statement, and not the truth of the fact therein
asserted (that Pedro is thief, etc.).
 HEARSAY EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE

 Testimony on facts not derived from a witness’ own

perception is is INADMISSIBLE in evidence,

 EXCEPT those provided by the Rules. (R130:36)
 BASIS OF EXCLUSION OF
HEARSAY EVIDENCE:

 Deprives a party opportunity to cross-examine the

outside declarant.

 In criminal cases, it would be violative of the

constitutional guarantee to cross-examine and
confront witnesses testifying against him.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE:

 Dying declarations (R130:37);

 Declarations against interest (R130:38);
 Act or declaration against pedigree (R130:39);
 Family reputation or tradition re pedigree (R130:40);
 Common reputation (R130:41);
 Part of res gestae (R130:42);
 Entries in the course of business (R130:43);
 Entries I official records (R130:44);
 Commercial lists and the like (R130:45);
 Learned treatises (R130:46);
 Testimony or deposition at former trial (R130:47)
Dying Declarations
 DYING DECLARATION

 The declaration of a dying person;

 Made under the consciousness of an impending
death;
 May be received in evidence:
 As evidence of the cause of and surrounding
circumstances of such death;
 In any case;
 Wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. (R130:37)
 DYING DECLARATION

 Declaration of a dying man who had in fact died is hearsay.

 But, as exception to the hearsay rule, dying declaration is:
 evidence of the highest order and entitled to utmost
credence;
 most mystical in its theory; and
 traditionally, the most arbitrary in its limitations.

 REASONS for admissibility:

 Necessity – because the declarant’s death renders him
impossible to take the witness stand and testify;
 Trustworthiness – because the declaration is made in
extremity, at the point of death, and when every motive of
falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most
powerful consideration to speak the truth.
 DYING DECLARATION, REQUISITES
FOR ADMISSIBILITY

1 Declaration must have been made by a dying person;

2 It must have been made under circumstances of his
impending death;
3 Declaration must refer to the cause or surrounding
circumstances of declarant’s death (and not anything else);
4 the declaration is offered in any case where the declarant’s
death is the subject of inquiry;
5 Declarant is a competent witness had he survived; and
6 Declarant must have died.
 DYING DECLARATION,
SOME IMPORTANT NOTES

 The declaration may be offered in any case, not just in criminal

proceedings for homicide, murder or parricide, provided that the
subject of inquiry is the death of the declarant.

 This abandons the pronouncement in People versus Cerilla, GR

1777147, 28 Nov. 2007;

 The declarant must identify his assailant, otherwise it loses its

significance.

 Declarant must die. If he survives, his declaration is not

admissible as dying declaration, but in some cases may be part
of res gestae.
Parts of Res Gestae
 PARTS OF RES GESTAE

R130:42 states:

Sec. 42. Part of res gestae – Statements given by a person

While a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae.

So also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to

the issue, and giving it legal significance, may be received as
part of res gestae. [R130:42]
 TWO TYPES OF PARTS OF RES GESTAE

1. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS (first sentence):

Statements given by a person;
While a startling occurrence is taking place, or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto;
With respect to the circumstances thereof;

2. VERBAL ACTS (second sentence):

Statements accompanying an equivocal act;
That is material to the issue;
Thus giving it legal significance.

NOTE: In the first, the startling occurrence is the res gestae

(“thing done”); in the second, the statement accompanying the
equivocal act is the res gestae.
 First Type Res Gestae: Spontaneous Act

ILLUSTRATION:

A young boy while walking on a narrow road in a dark night

was suddenly clubbed from behind by the suspect thereby cracking
open the boy’s head.

An old woman saw the incident and cried hysterically as she pointed
to the suspect, yelling “There he is. He did it, he did it, he hit the
boy!” Instantly, the old woman left and banished for she was in fear.

An old man, who did not see the suspect hit the boy, saw the
old woman scream as she pointed to the suspect. The old woman
was not known and found. The man was called to testify in court
about what he saw.
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
First Type Res Gestae: Spontaneous Act
1 There is a startling event or occurrence;
 The clubbing is the startling occurrence.
 This is the res gestae (“thing done”);
2 A statement was made by a declarant;
 The shouting (“There he is. He did it, he did it, he hit the boy!”) made by the
woman is the out-of-court declaration.
 This is the part of res gestae.
3 The statement was given while the startling event or occurrence is
taking place, or immediately prior or subsequent thereto;
4 The statement was made spontaneously – that is, before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise a falsehood;
5 The statement relates to the circumstances of the startling event
or occurrence;
 Second Type Res Gestae: Verbal Acts

ILLUSTRATION:

In a case, the defendant refused to return a book to

plaintiff claiming that he already bought it on credit from
plaintiff. Plaintiff insisted that defendant merely borrowed it,
thus sued defendant for recovery of the ipad.

During the trial, defendant presented a witness who

testified that he saw the plaintiff hand in to defendant the book
who in turn told plaintiff he will pay the latter in two weeks.
 Second Type Res Gestae: Verbal Acts

COURT DRAMA:

Attorney: You said that you saw plaintiff give the book to defendant,
am I right?
Witness: Yes, sir.
Attorney: At that time, did you know why plaintiff handed the book to
defendant?
Witness: No, sir.
Attorney: What, if any, did plaintiff say when he gave the book to
defendant?
Witness: Plaintiff said, ‘Here’s the book you want to buy.’
Attorney: And when defendant took the book, what did he say, if any?
Witness: He said, ‘Thanks, I will pay you in a week.”
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Second Type Res Gestae: Verbal Acts
1 The principal act must be equivocal;
 The giving of the ipad was the principal act. This is the principal act.
 The giving was equivocal or unclear. It was not known by the witness why the ipad
was handed. :
 The giving had no clear legal significance: Was the ipad sold, lent, deposited or
donated?
2 The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
3 The statement must accompany the equivocal act;
 The statement said by the plaintiff (not of the defendant) is the statement that
accompanies the equivocal act.
 This is the part of the res gestae. This is hearsay but admissible.
4 The statement must give legal significance to the equivocal act.
 The statement of plaintiff (“Here’s the ipad you want to buy”) gave the equivocal act
(giving) a legal significance (that the giving was part of a contract to sell).
Declarations Against Interest
 Declarations Against Interest

R130:38 states:

Sec. 43. Declaration against interest. – The declaration

made by a person deceased or unable to testify, against the
interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration
was at the time it was made so far was contrary to declarant’s
own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not
have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may
be received in evidence against himself or his successors in
interest and against third persons.
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Declarations Against Interest

1 That, a declaration is made by person;

2 That, at the time the declaration was made, the matter therein
asserted was against his own interest;
 Note: The interest may be pecuniary, moral or penal interest.
3 That, declarant knew that the statement was against his own
interest as shown by the fact that:
 a reasonable man of his position would not have made the declaration
unless he believed it to be true.
4 That, the declarant is now dead or unable to testify.
 Declarations Against Interest

ILLUSTRATION:
The heirs of X filed an action against defendant for the recovery of
a motor vehicle. Defendant refused to turn over the vehicle claiming that,
during his lifetime, X sold to him the vehicle.
To prove his allegation, defendant presented a witness who
testified that X told him that he has already sold the vehicle to defendant, in
fact X allegedly added that that explained why he did not anymore
bothered to get back the vehicle.
Such testimony may be admitted and received against the
successors, in this case the heirs of X as exception to the hearsay rule.
 Declarations Against Interest

FOUNDATIONS:

The rule finds basis in human nature and experience.

People normally speak freely and even with untruth when the statement is
in their interest;

But they are usually unwilling to speak falsely against their interests.

It is also founded on NECESSITY on account of the impossibility of

obtaining testimony of the declarant who is already dead.
 Declarations Against Interest,
Distinguished from Admissions
 Declarations are admissible only when declarant is already dead or unable to testify;
admissions are admissible even if the declarant is alive and present.

 Declarations are made before the controversy arose; admissions may be made at any
time even during trial;

 Declarations are made against one’s own pecuniary or moral interest; admissions are
admissible so long as inconsistent with one’s present claim or defense;

 Admissions are admissible only against the declarant, unlike in declarations which may
be received against successors and third persons;

 Admission is admissible as a general rule, while declarations are admissible as an

exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence.
 Declarations Against Interest,
Distinguished from Dead Man’s Statute

 DMS applies only to:

 civil actions and special proceedings;
 the suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of a person;
 where the defendant is the executor, administrator or representative of the
deceased (or one of unsound mind);
 the witness is the PLAINTIFF or an assignor of the plaintiff or a person in
whose behalf the case is prosecuted;
 the subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the
death of such deceased or unsound person.

Here, the PLAINTIFF is barred from testifying on any matter of fact occurring
before the death of the deceased person against whose estate the action is
filed. This is a rule of disqualification. In declaration, the rule is exception from
hearsay rule.
 Cf., Dead Man’s Statute
Illustration

Debtor and Creditor were best friends. Debtor borrowed huge sum of
money from Creditor. Being friends, they did not put the transaction into writing.
The next day, Debtor died.

Creditor now goes to Debtor’s son and demanded for payment. Debtor’s
son refused to pay claiming lack of knowledge about the transaction. Creditor
goes to court and files an action for sum of money against Debtor’s estate and
named debtor’s heirs as defendants.

Under the DMS, plaintiff Creditor cannot testify in court to prove that
Debtor borrowed money from him, but he may testify on any other matter occurring
after Debtor’s death.

But a witness is not precluded from testifying on the matter.

Common Reputation
 COMMON REPUTATION

R130:41 states:

Sec. 41. Common reputation. – Common reputation existing

previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general
interest more than thirty years old, respecting marriage or moral
character, may be given in evidence.

Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as

evidence of common reputation.
 COMMON REPUTATION

 REPUTATION – the definite opinion of persons as to knowledge or existence of

a particular matter to be proved.

 Under the Rules, reputation may be:

 Common or general reputation (R40)
 Family reputation (R39)

 Reputations means the general or substantially undivided one, although it need

not be unanimous.

 Reputation in itself is hearsay but, under certain circumstances, is admissible

because of trustworthiness.
 COMMON REPUTATION, REQUISITES
FOR ADMISSIBILITY
1 Shall have existed prior to the controversy (“ante litem motam”);

2 Must refer to a matter of:

1 public interest which is more than thirty years old, or
2 marriage or moral character;

 Note: that while common reputation in the community may establish a matter of
public or general interest, marriage or moral character, it cannot establish
pedigree, which may be established by reputation in the family.
 COMMON REPUTATION, ILLUSTRATIONS

1 PUBLIC INTEREST:

 The fact that Ninoy Aquino was assassinated in 1983 may be proved as
a common or general reputation after 2013.
 The fact that a certain Juan dela Cruz was a blacksmith may be proved
by an old stone signage erected in the town plaza.
 Note however that facts of national interest may be stipulated by the
parties or even given judicial notice by courts.

2 MARRIAGE OR MORAL CHARACTER:

 The fact that “Bruno” was a swindler may be proved by oral testimony. (Note
however that, in criminal cases, the prosecution may not prove bad moral character
of the accused unless in rebuttal (R130:51).
 The fact that H and W are spouses may be proved by oral testimony.
Act or Declaration
About Pedigree
 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE

R130:39 states:

Sec. 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. – The act or declaration of a

person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another
person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the relation between the two persons is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

The word “pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,

death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the
names of the relatives. It embraces facts of amily history intimately connected
with pedigree.
 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE,
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

1 The declarant is dead, or is unable to testify;

2 The declarant is related by birth or marriage to the person whose

pedigree is in issue;

3 The declaration was made before the controversy (‘ante litem

motam’); and

4 The relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence

other than such act or declaration.
 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE,
ILLUSTRATIONS

1 During his lifetime, Jose sent Junior to college and had made
public declaration that Junior is his illegitimate son.

 Here, the fact that Junior is the illegitimate son of Jose may be proved by
the testimony of another person who had knowledge of the declaration of
Jose.

2 Miss W, when she was still alive, had confided to her mother that
the father of her daughter D is U.

 Here, the fact that D is the daughter of U may be proved by the testimony of
the mother of Miss W.
 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE

 HENCE, in our illustrations: Note that the declarations of

Jose and Miss W are admissible only when:

The declaration was made before controversy about pedigree

arose; and

The relationship between the persons (Jose and Junior; and D,

and M) is shown by evidence other than the act or declaration.
 Family Reputation or
Tradition About Pedigree
 FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
R130:40 states:

Sec. 41. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. –

The reputation or tradition existing in family previous to the
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be
also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity,
entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings
on rings, family portraits and the like, may received as evidence of
pedigree.
 FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
The exception involves:

A statement by a member of the family, either:

 by consanguinity, or
 by affinity;

The statement is about:

 the reputation or tradition of the family
 in respect to the pedigree of any member of the family; and

The reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the controversy.

 FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE

ILLUSTRATION:

A person’ s statement as to his date of birth and age, as he learned

of these from his parents or relatives, is an ante litem motam
declaration of a family tradition. (Gravador vs. Mamigo, L-24989)

Such statement prevails over the mere opinion of the trial judge.
(U.S. vs. Agadas, 32 Phil. 321)
 Summary: How Pedigree Proved

PEDIGREE may be proved by:

PRIMARY EVIDENCE: -- such as birth certificates, etc.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE (butadmissible as exception), namely:

 By the act or declaration of relatives (R130:39)

 By reputation or tradition in the family (R130:40);
 By entries in Bibles (R130:40)

NOTE: That pedigree cannot be proved by common reputation, but

marriage can be.
Entries in the Course of Business
(“Business Records Rule”)
 Business Records Rule

R130:43 states:

Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business. – Entries made

at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the ordinary course of business or duty.

NOTE: Section 8 of the Rules on Electronics Evidence now expressly exempts business
records from the hearsay rule.
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Business Records Rule

1 That, entries were made at, or near the time of, the transaction
referred to;

2 That, such entries were made in the regular course of business;

3 That, the person making the entries made so in his professional

capacity or in the perfromance of duty; and

4 That the person making the entry is now dead or unable to testify.
 Business Records Rule

ILLUSTRATION:
Apple Corp. sued FreshFruits, Inc. for payment of apples delivered
to the latter. FreshFruits however denied having received the apples,
hence in refused to pay.
Apple listed as its witnesses the Delivery man and the Clerk who
prepared the delivery receipts to prove the fact of delivery of the apples.
However, the delivery man has already retired and now lives in the USA
while the Clerk already died.
Apple is now posed with a problem on how to present the delivery
receipts in court to prove the fact of delivery because only the Clerk could
identify the delivery receipts with competence in court.
Entries in Official Records
 Entries in Official Records

R130:44 states:

Sec. 43. Entries in official records. – Entries made in official

records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specifically
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Entries in Official Records
1 That, the entry was made by a public officer, or by another
person;

2 That, it was made:

 by the public officer – in the performance of his duties, or
 by such other person – in the performance of duty specifically enjoined by
law for him to do;

3 That, such public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge

of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him
personally or thorugh official information.
Barcelon Roxas Security versus BIR, GR 157064, 07 Aug. 2007
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Entries in Official Records
In a case, respondent denied having received assessment notice from the
BIR. To prove service of such assessment notice, BIR presented a witness
who presented the assessment notice but:

 did not attest to the fact that she personally prepared and mailed the assessment
notice;
 did not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports from persons under a legal duty
to submit the same;
 has not shown from whom she obtained the pertinent information;

The SC held that R130:44 does not apply and that the testimony did not
qualify as an exemption to the hearsay rule bcuase the witness had no
personal knowledge.
Barcelon Roxas Security versus BIR, GR 157064, 07 Aug. 2007
Commercial Lists
and the Like
 COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE

R130:45 states:

Sec. 43. Commercial Lists and the Like. – Evidence of

statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation contained in a list, register, periodicals or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any
relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied
upon by the therein.
 COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE,
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

1 That, the statement is contained in a list, register, periodicals or

other published compilation;

2 That, the statement refers to matters of interest to persons

engaged in an occupation;

3 That, the compilation is published for use by persons engaged in

that occupation;

4 That, it is generally used and relied upon by them therein.

 COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE,
CONDITION AND EXTENT OF ADMISSIBILITY

NOTE:

 CONDITION -- the statement is admissible only if the published

list or compilation is is generally used and relied upon by the
persons engaged in the occupation; and

 EXTENT -- the statement is admissible so far only “as tending to prove

the truth of any relevant matter so stated.”
 COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE,
EXAMPLES

1 Market price list of securities like shares of stocks published or

posted by bourses is admissible to prove the price of the
commodity on a particular time;

2 A printed copy of a herd book in which cattle are registered,

which was recognized by cattle breeders to be the standard
authority, is admissible to prove matters stated therein.

 BUT, an unpublished personal Year Book or catalogue of cattle record is

not admissible to prove the age of the cattle in controversy.
Learned Treatises
 LEARNED TREATISES

R130:46 states:

Sec. 43. Learned treatises. – Published treatise, periodical or

pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes
judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies that the
writer of the statement in the teatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
 LEARNED TREATISES, REQUISITES
FOR ADMISSIBILITY
1 That, a statement or subject of history, law, science or art is
contained in a published treatise, pamphlet or periodical;

2 That, either:

a. The court takes judicial notice of it; or

b. If the court could not make judicial notice, a witness expert in the
subject testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as
expert in the subject
 LEARNED TREATISES, EXAMPLES

 The Ballantine Scale of Values (which contained comparative

values of money during the Japanese occupation) has been taken
judicial notice of by the CA to be admissible.

 Mortality and annuity tables (such as the Carlise Tables, the

American Experience Table, the Northampton Tables, Wiggleworth
Tables) had been held to be admissible.
Testimony or Deposition
At a Former Proceeding
 TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION
AT A FORMER PROCEEDING

R130:47 states:

Sec. 43. 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.
 TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
PROCEEDING, REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
1 The witness is dead or unable to testify;

2 His testimony was given in a former case of proceeding:

 whether judicial or administrative;
 between the same parties oer 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 by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved
in the present case ; and

5 The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the

former case.
 TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION
AT A FORMER PROCEEDING
DOES THE RULE VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE
TO CONFRONTATION OF WITNESS?

The SC held:

The rule does not violate the constitutional privilege of accused to

confront the witnesses against him.

The law recognizes the personal presence of the witness as more

advantageous to the accused, but even then the right of the public
shall not only be wholly sacrificed in order that an incidental benefit
may be preserved to the accused.
 THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
 CONCEPT OF RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE

 Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non Debet -- literally means
“things done between strangers ought not ot injure those who are
not parties to them.”

 Legal expression found in R130:28 and R:130:34:

Sec. 28. -- The rights of a third party cannot be prejudiced by an act,

declaration or omission or another xxx.”

Sec. 34. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time
is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time xxx.”
 CONCEPT OF RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
 NOTE: That the declarations that are not admissible referred to in the
rule refer to EXTRAJUDICIAL declarations.

 EXAMPLE: X was arrested. During media interview, he told reporters that Z was his
companion in robbing the victim. X’s declaration that Z was his co-conspirator is not
admissible against Z. (Note however that X’s statement is admissible against him).

 BUT, Statements given in testimony in court are not included in the rule
and therefore ADMISSIBLE.

 EXAMPLE: X testified in court that his companion in robbing the victim was
Z. This is a judicial statement that is admissible.
 TWO BRANCHES OF RES
INTER ALIOS ACTA

First Branch:

Sec. 28. -- The rights of a third party cannot be prejudiced by an act,

declaration or omission or another, except as hereinafter provided.”

Second Branch

Sec. 34. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time
is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a sepcific intent or konwledge,
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like..”
 RES INTER ALIOS ACTA,
First Branch

The rights of a third party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration

or omission or another,

EXCEPT:

 Admission by a co-partner or agent (R130:29);

 Admission by a co-conspirator (R130:30);
 Admission by privies (R130:31).
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES
INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
Admissions by Partners
Or Agents
6/24/2019

Partnership Law
Article 1818. Every partner is an agent of the partnership for the
purpose of its business, and the act of every partner, including
the execution in the partnership name of any instrument, for
apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the
partnership of which he is a member binds the partnership,

UNLESS the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for

the partnership in the particular matter, and the person with
whom he is dealing has knowledge of the fact that he has no
such authority.

An act of a partner which is not apparently for the carrying on of

business of the partnership in the usual way does not bind the
partnership unless authorized by the other partners.
6/24/2019

Partnership Law
Article 1820. An admission or representation made by any partner
concerning partnership affairs within the scope of his authority in
accordance with this Title is evidence against the partnership. (n)

Article 1821. Notice to any partner of any matter relating to partnership

affairs, and the knowledge of the partner acting in the particular matter,
acquired while a partner or then present to his mind, and the knowledge of
any other partner who reasonably could and should have communicated it
to the acting partner, operate as notice to or knowledge of the partnership,
except in the case of fraud on the partnership, committed by or with the
consent of that partner. (n)
6/24/2019

Partnership Law
Article 1822. Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in
the ordinary course of the business of the partnership
or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused to any
person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty
is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the
partner so acting or omitting to act. (n)

Article 1818. Every partner is an agent of the partnership for the purpose of
its business, and the act of every partner, including the
execution in the partnership name of any instrument, for apparently carrying
on in the usual way the business of the partnership of
which he is a member binds the partnership, unless the partner so acting
has in fact no authority to act for the partnership in the
particular matter, and the person with whom he is dealing has knowledge of
the fact that he has no such authority.
An act of a partner which is not apparently for the carrying on of business of
the partnership in the usual way does not bind the
 ADMISSION BY A PARTNER OR AGENT,
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
GENERAL RULE: The act or declaration of a partner or agent does not
bind his co-partner or principal.
EXCEPT WHEN:
 The act or declaration was made within the scope of the partner’s
agent’s authority;
 The act or declaration was made during the existence of the
partnership or agent (that is, when the declarant was still a partner or
agent); and
 The existence of the partnership or agency can be proven other than
by said act or declaration. (R130:29)
 ADMISSION BY A PARTNER OR AGENT,
ILLUSTRATION

X admitted to his friend that he and his partners Y and Z together

embezzled partnership money.

X statement is admissible:

 as against X;
 if the partnership still exists at the time the statement is given;
 If the existence of the partnership can be established by other
evidence than said statement.
Admissions by Conspirator
 ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR,
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
GENERAL RULE: The act or declaration of a co-conspirator does
not bind his co-partner or principal.

EXCEPT WHEN:

 The act or declaration must relate to the conspiracy;

 The act or declaration was made during the existence of the

conspiracy; and

 The existence of the conspiracy can be proven other than by

said act or declaration. (R130:30)
 ADMISSION BY CNSPIRATOR,
ILLUSTRATION

X executed a judicial confession before his counsel that he and his

co-accused Y and Z together planned to kill and in fact killed the
victim.

X’s confession:

 may be admissible as against X – if his guilt can be established by

evidence other than his confession;

 is not admissible because, at the time the admission was made, the
conspiracy no longer existed;
Admissions by Privies
 Who are privies?

Privies refer to the parties in a succession of rights:

 In blood – heirs to an ancestor;

 In representation – executors, administrators, guardians
 In respect to contract – buyers and sellers, lessors and lessees

Note that the ground of privity is PROPERTY and not

personal relationship.
 ADMISSION BY PRIVIES,
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
GENERAL RULE: The act, declaration or omission of the previous
ownner of a property does not bind his successor-in-interest.

EXCEPTION: Acts, declarations, or omissions of predecessors-in-

interest are ADMISSIBLE when:

 The act, declaration or omission was in relation to a property;

 The act or declaration occurred while the declarant was still

holding title to the property; and
 ADMISSION BY PRIVIES,
ILLUSTRATION

S inherited a car from his father F. During his lifetime, F has told a
friend that he has already sold the car to a buyer.

The statement of F is not admissible as against S because the statement

was made after F had lost title to the car.