Hearsay – Lex Rex Ph

What is hearsay?

In a general sense, hearsay means rumor or a statement from someone other than the one who declares.

In evidence, it is called hearsay in court or hearsay evidence.

A testimony not coming from personal knowledge. (Rule 130 Sec. 37) It is a statement other than the declarant’s statement while testifying at a trial or hearing. It is without probative value whether objected or not. (Feria vs. CA)

What is a statement, then?

An oral or written assertion. (Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony)
Non-verbal conduct of a person is intended as an assertion if it is intended to be such.

What then qualifies as hearsay?

It can be a written assertion of Pedro asserting that Juan said that Maria stole Martha’s purse.

“A witness can only testify to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge…” (Knowledge means derived from his or her perception) Rule 130 Sec. 22

The crucial element to identify a statement as hearsay (the most controversial part)

To determine that a statement is hearsay, the purpose for which the evidence was offered is the crucial element:

Hearsay: When the statement is offered to prove the very matter asserted in the statement.

To prove the matter asserted or “for hearsay purpose”

Example:

The witness presented a newspaper advertisement to prove the price of a round trip ticket between Manila and Los Angeles

When is hearsay admissible?

Hearsay evidence is admissible in a preliminary investigation. They are admissible to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed. They may serve as basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest soi long as there is a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. (Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman)

If a statement is presented not to prove the truth of its contents or entries but to prove a certain fact, it is not hearsay.

For evidentiary purpose
When the reaction of the hearer is sought to be proved, not the truth of the assertion in the statement.
When the statement is offered to merely show what was said, and not the truth of the matter asserted. (Bar 2012)
Merely to show that the accused uttered such words.

Some examples:

Presenting unsigned statement of accounts not to prove its entries but to prove the possessor’s good faith;
To establish the presenter’s state of mind
Used as circumstantial evidence
To prove that the declarant was alive and not to prove that his statement should be admitted to establish guilt against the accused.

Why is hearsay inadmissible in court? Why is it not allowed at trial?

Because the witness asserts that the facts are true by merely repeating in court what someone else has told him outside the court.
Generally, a witness can only testify to the truth of facts within his personal knowledge (Arjonillo vs. Pagulayan). This has exceptions.
This is because there is no opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom statements or writings are attributed.
The court has no opportunity to observe the demeanor of the person who made them (People vs. Padit)
Because that someone outside of the court cannot be questioned. His perception cannot be tested. (this is the essence of cross-examination)
Who in his right mind would take the words of someone about another man’s statements are true?

What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule? (When is hearsay admissible?)

Basis: Estrada vs. Desierto

The very facts in issue

Statements which are the very facts in issue

Independently relevant statements

Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue.

Statements that are admissible for some relevant reason other than/independent of their truth or falsity. Meaning, whether or not they are true, what’s important is that they have been uttered.

Statements are presented not to assert its contents but to prove a certain relevant fact or what the accused had mentioned, or tenor of the statement. “Tenor” means tendency or drift.

For example, if someone makes a threat, the importance of that statement isn’t whether the threat was carried out or not, but that the threat was made at all. This can be used in court to demonstrate the person’s mindset or intent.

A statement having probative worth simply by the fact that it was uttered, if relevant to a material fact in issue.

For example: a statement offered to show the defendant’s consciousness of guilt; or a newspaper is offered not to prove the truth of its contents but to prove that there was a publication.

When only the utterance of the testimony is important, it is not a hearsay evidence, but an “operative act” or an independently relevant statement.

Statements to establish a person’s statement of mind

Those statements in a legal context that are significant on their own, regardless of whether they are true or false. These statements are important not because they prove or disprove a fact directly, but because they show something about a person’s intention, knowledge, belief, ill-will, other emotions, motives, or state of mind at a particular time.

Identifiers

Statements which may identify the date, place, and person in question;

Impairs credibility of a witness

Another example are statements that impair the credibility of a witness. When Witness B testifies as to the statements of Witness A that contradicts his previous statement before the court, the statements of Witness B are not hearsay.

Other legal exceptions to hearsay

A statement is not hearsay if (a) inconsistent with his testimony given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at trial; (b) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut a charge against him; or (c) to identify a person after perceiving him or her. (Rule 130 Sec. 37B)

A statement isn’t considered hearsay and can be used in court if it meets one of these conditions:

It contradicts what the person said when they testified in court under oath.
It agrees with what the person said in court and is used to challenge an accusation against them.
It was made to identify someone the person saw.

Made by a non-person

An out-of-court declaration made by a non-person which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted (Bar 2014). (Example: if a declaration made by a dog to establish the truth of the existence of a bomb in a bag, it is not hearsay)

OUT OF COURT DECLARATIONS OF A NON-PERSON: A dog that sat beside the a package that is believed to be dangerous drugs. (Bar 2014, People vs. Centolella)

Dying declarations (Rule 130 Sec. 38)

Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind (Rule 130 Sec. 39)

Declaration against interest (Rule 130 Sec. 40)

Act or declaration about pedigree (Rule 130 Sec. 41)

Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Rule 130 Sec. 42)

Common reputation (Rule 130 Sec. 43)

Part of Res Gestae (Rule 140 Sec. 33)

Records of regular conduct of business activity (Rule 130 Sec. 45)

Entries in official records (Rule 130 Sec. 46)

Commercial lists nad the like (Rule 130 Sec. 47)

Learn treatises (Rule 130 Sec. 48)

Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (Rule 130 Sec. 49)

Residual exception (Rule 130 Sec. 50)

Examples of hearsay evidence

The statement of a witness who never testified in court and was not cross-examined by the accused to test its credibility is hearsay evidence. – People vs. Hecto
An affidavit where the affiant/maker did not take the witness stand (Rosit v. Davao)
Even a notarized affidavit is hearsay if the affiant is not palaced on the witness stand to testify thereon. Rationale: the affidavit was not prepared by the affiants but by another one who uses his own language in writing the statements, parts of which may be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them.
Jose testified that Juan wrote to him that he was a street gangster who shot the cop and not Jose’s uncle.
News articles via internet, if used to prove the truth of their contents, constitute hearsay.

What does “objection, hearsay” mean?

It is what a counsel or a lawyer says when a party is deemed to be making a hearsay statement.

For example, when a witness uses an out-of-court statement from an outside declarant to establish that the accused killed the victim, the lawyer of the defense should exclaim. “Objection, hearsay.” And the Court should sustain.

What is double hearsay?

Double hearsay, also known as hearsay within hearsay, refers to a situation where a hearsay statement contains another hearsay statement.

The double hearsay rule states that both the statement and the statement within the statement must be admissible; otherwise, only a portion of the evidence or possibly nothing gets admitted in court. Each layer of hearsay must be found separately admissible for the statement to be admitted in court.