VIOLAINE WYCOCO
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE QUESTIONS:
1. _________________ made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be
received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of
the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
A. DYING DECLARATION
B. RES GESTAE
C. DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
2. Learned treaties refers to Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
matter as stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.
A. THE STATEMENT IS TRUE
B. THE STATEMENT IS FALSE
3. Q: Anthony raped Melissa. After raping Melissa, Anthony fled. Melissa then rushed
to the police station and told Police Officer Gilbert what had happened. Anthony
was charged with rape. During the trial, Melissa can no longer be located. If the
prosecution presents Gilbert to testify on what Melissa had told him, would such
testimony of Gilbert be hearsay?
A. No. It is part of res gestae. It is also an independently relevant
statement. Buloy testified based on his personal knowledge; that is,
he was testifying to the fact that Reyna told him that she was raped by
Sam and not to the truth of Reynas statement. People v. Gaddi, G.R. No.
74065, Feb. 27, 1989). (2005 Bar Question)
B. Yes, it is a hearsay because the police officer gilbert has no personal knowledge
of the rape allegedly committed by Anthony it should be excluded. And further
there is no opportunity to cross-examine Melissa with respect to her testimony.
4. Q: JM was charged with the crime of kidnapping of JACKSON. One of the
testimonies presented by the prosecution was that of JANINE, close friend of
jackson, she testified that JACKSON confided to her that he and JMS wife PSYCHE
were having an affair. Undoubtedly, his wife's infidelity was ample reason for JM
to contemplate revenge. Consequently, the trial court convicted JM based on the
testimonies of the witnesses. Was the testimony of JANINE admissible as
evidence?
A. No, it is not admissible as evidence. The declaration against interest cannot be
invoked if it is not made by the accused himself regarding the crime he committed
more so when it is made by the prosecutions witness who has an interest in the
outcome of the case being the friend of the victim Jackson.
B: Yes. Edwards revelation to Emma regarding his illicit relationship with
Harrys wife is admissible in evidence. The declaration against interest"
has been expanded to include all kinds of interest, that is, pecuniary,
proprietary, moral or even penal. JACKSON having been missing since his
abduction, cannot be called upon to testify. His confession to JANINE,
definitely a declaration against his own interest, since his affair with
Bella was a crime, is admissible in evidence because no sane person will
be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment. (People v. Theodore
Bernal, G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997)
5. Q: What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?
A:
1. Dying declaration;
2. Declaration against interest;
3. Act or declaration about pedigree;
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
5. Common reputation;
6. Part of the res gestae;
7. Entries in the course of business;
8. Entries in official records;
9. Commercial lists and the like;
10. Learned treaties;
11. Testimony or deposition at a former trial.
6. One of the distinctions between res gestae and dying declaration is that a dying
declaration can be made by the participant and a third person who has personal
knowledge of the facts while res gestae can be made by the victim only.
A. The statement is partly true
B. The statement is true
C. The statement is partly false
D. The statement is false
7. Give examples of entries in official record:
i. records of birth, marriage, adoption an death kept by the Local Civil
Registrar
ii. List of voters and results of elections by the COMELEC Registrar
iii. List of Eligibles by the CSC
iv. List of Professionals by the PRC Record
v. The Day Book of the Register of Deeds
vi. List of marriages by religious persons licensed to solemnize
marriages
vii. Sheriffs Return on a writ of execution
viii. Court docket officer
ix. The Notarial Registry of a Notary Public.
x. Ship Log Book
8. ______________ refers to the knowledge or beliefs of a certain family handed from
one generation to another, or to practices or customs which are consistently
observed or engaged in by said family. A member of said family is the one
testifying to these matters.
a. PROOF BY FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
b. COMMON REPUTATION
c. PROOF BY DECLARATION OF A RELATIVE
9. Ben was charged with robbery and was arrested by police operatives by virtue of
a warrant of arrest. In a press conference called by the police, Ben admitted that
he had robbed the victim. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper
clipping of the report of the reporter who was present during the press
conference stating that Ben admitted the robbery. Is the newspaper clipping
admissible in evidence against Ben?
a. No it is not admissible, basic is the rule that no evidence will be admitted if the
person who has personal knowledge thereof was not presented before the court
to testify on the veracity of the facts being alleged, it being hearsay. The reason
for disallowing such is the deprivation of the adverse party to cross-examine the
person who has knowledge.
b. Yes it is admissible as an independent relevant statement. The hearsay
rule does not apply and the statement may be shown where the fact
that it is made is relevant. The statement itself may constitute a fact
in issue or may be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such
facts. (gotesco investment corporation vs. chatto 210 scra 18 (1992).
10. Blinded by extreme jealousy,Alberto shot his wife, Betty, in the presenceof
his sister, Carla. Carla brought Betty to the hospital. Outside the operating room,
Carla told Domingo, a male nurse, that it was Alberto who shot Betty. Betty died
while undergoing emergency surgery. At the trial of the parricide charges filed
against Alberto, the prosecutor sought to present Domingo as witness, to testify on
what Carla told him. The defense counsel objected on the ground that Domingos
testimony is inadmissible for being hearsay. Rule on the objection with reasons.
A. Objection overruled. The disclosure received by Domingo and Carla
may be regarded as independently relevant statement which is not
covered by the hearsay rule; hence admissible. The statement may
be received not as evidence of the truth of what was stated but only
as to the tenor thereof and the occurrence when it was said,
Independently of whether it was true or false. (People v. Cloud, 333
Phil. 30[1996]; People v. Malibiran, et al., G.R.No. 178301, April 24,
2009)
B. Objection sustained. The disclosur emade by Carla has no other probative
value except to identify who shot Betty. Its tenor is irrelevant to the incident,
and the same was made not to a police investigator of the occurrence but to a
nurse whose concern is only to attend to the patient. Hence, the disclosure
does not qualify as independently relevant statement and therefore, hearsay.
The nurse is competent to testify only on the condition of Betty when rushed
to the Hospital but not as to who caused the injury. The prosecution should call
on Carla as the best witness to the incident.
