Scribd
Upload
190 views5 pages

Klmnotes - Evidence: Exception To Hearsay: Dying Declaration

This document provides an overview of evidentiary rules regarding hearsay evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule under Philippine law. It defines hearsay, outlines the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, and describes several exceptions including dying declarations, statements of deceased or persons of unsound mind, declarations against interest, pedigree, family tradition, common reputation, and others. It also discusses related topics like opinion testimony, character evidence, burdens of proof, presumptions, examination of witnesses, authentication of documents, and objections. Numerous Philippine Supreme Court cases are cited for each topic as examples.

Uploaded by

Kim Fernández
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
190 views5 pages

Klmnotes - Evidence: Exception To Hearsay: Dying Declaration

This document provides an overview of evidentiary rules regarding hearsay evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule under Philippine law. It defines hearsay, outlines the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, and describes several exceptions including dying declarations, statements of deceased or persons of unsound mind, declarations against interest, pedigree, family tradition, common reputation, and others. It also discusses related topics like opinion testimony, character evidence, burdens of proof, presumptions, examination of witnesses, authentication of documents, and objections. Numerous Philippine Supreme Court cases are cited for each topic as examples.

Uploaded by

Kim Fernández
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

1|K L M N o t e s _ E v i d e n c e

HEARSAY
 Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered
to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
 A statement is:
(1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.
 Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
 A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-
examination concerning the statement, and the statement is
(a) Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury
at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
(b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is off ered to rebut an express or implied charge against
the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or
(c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her.

HEARSAY JURISPRUDENCE
 People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 (1992)
Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence. The lack of objection may make
any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of
evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value.

 People v. Brioso, 37 SCRA 336 (30jan1971) L-28482


 People v. Cusi, 14 SCRA 944 (14aug1965) L-20986
 People v. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649 (27feb1989) 74065
 Leake v. Hagert, 175 N.W.2d 675 (1970)
 U.S. v. Zenni, 492 F. Supp. 464 (1980)
 Estrada vs Desierto 356 SCRA 108 (03apr2001) 146710-15

Exception to Hearsay: Dying Declaration


 The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received
in any case wherein his or her death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.
 People v. Devaras, 37 SCRA 697 (1971)
 People v. Laquinon, 135 SCRA 91 (28feb1985) L-45470
 People v. Sabio, 102 SCRA 218 (27jan1981) L-26193
 People v. de Joya, 203 SCRA 343 (1991)
 People v. Salison, G.R. No. L-115690, Feb. 20, 1996

Exception to Hearsay: Statement of Decedent or unsound mind


 In an action against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against
a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against
such person of unsound mind, where a party or assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the
person became of unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, may be
received in evidence if the statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or the
person of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by him or her and while
his or her recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances
indicating its lack of trustworthiness.

Exception to Hearsay: Declaration against Interest


2|K L M N o t e s _ E v i d e n c e

he 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 contrary to the declarant’s own interest that a reasonable person in his or her position would
not have made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or herself or his or her successors in interest and against third persons. A statement tending to
expose the declarant to criminal liability and off ered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless
corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. (Viacrusis v. CA, 44 SCRA 176
(1972)
People v. Toledo, 51 Phil. 825 (1928)
People v. Majuri, 96 SCRA 472 (1980)
Fuentes v. CA, 253 SCRA 430 (1996)

Exception to Hearsay: Pedigree


1) Rule 130, §41
2) Cases
Gravador v. Mamigo, 20 SCRA 742 (1967)
Tison v. CA, 276 SCRA 582 (1997)

Exception to Hearsay: Family Tradition


1) Rule 130, §42
2) Case
People v. Alegado, 201 SCRA 37 (1991)
Ferrer v. de Inchausti, 38 Phil 905 (1918)

Exception to Hearsay: Common Reputation


1) Rule 130, §43
2) Cases
City of Manila v. Del Rosario, 5 Phil 227 (1905)

Exception to Hearsay: Res Gestae


1) Rule 130, §44
2) Cases
People v. Putian, 74 SCRA 133 (1976)
People v. Peralta, 237 SCRA 218 (1994)
People v. Lungayan, 162 SCRA 100 (1988)
People v. Tolentino, 218 SCRA 337 (1993)

Exception to Hearsay: Verbal acts


1) Rule 130, §44
2) Case
Dusepec v. Torres, 39 Phil 760 (1919)

Exception to Hearsay: Entries in the Course of Business


1) Rule 130, §45
2) Cases
Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943)
Philamlife v. Capital Assurance Corp., (CA) 72 O.G. 3941

Exception to Hearsay: Official Records


1) Rule 130, §46
2) Cases
Fortus v. Novero, 23 SCRA 1330 (1968)
Africa v. Caltex, 16 SCRA 448 (31mar1966) L-12986
3|K L M N o t e s _ E v i d e n c e

People v. Leones, 117 SCRA 382 (30sep1982) L-48727


Manalo v. Robles Trans. Co., Inc., 99 Phil. 729 (16aug1956) L-8171
People v. Cabuang, 217 SCRA 675 (27jan1993) 103292
People v. Gabriel, G.R. No. L-107735, Feb. 1, 1996

Exception to Hearsay: Commercial Lists


1) Rule 130, §47
2) Cases
State v. Lungsford, 400 A.2d 843 (1979)
PNOC Shipping vs. CA (299 SCRA 402)
Estrada vs. Noble, [C.A,] 49 O.G. 139
l. Learned Treatises
1) Rule 130, §48
2) Cases
Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736 (1988)

Exception to Hearsay: Prior Testimony


1) Rule 130, §49
2) Cases
Tan v. CA, 20 SCRA 54 (1967)
People v. Liwanag, 73 SCRA 473 (1976)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980)
NOTE: Section 50 - Residual Exceptions (New provision)

Opinion Rule
1. Rule 130, §51-53
2. Cases
Dilag & Co. v. Merced, 45 O.G. 5536 (1949)
U.S. v. Trono, 3 Phil. 213 (1904)
People v. Adoviso GR# 116196-97 23jun1999
People v. Baid GR#129667 31jul2000

Rule 130, §54: Character Evidence

Burden of Proof and Evidence


Rule 131, §1
1. Civil Cases
a. Rule 133, Sec. 1
b. Cases
Pornellosa v. LTA, L-14040, 31 January 1986
IFC v. Tobias, 78 SCRA 28 (1977)
2. Criminal Cases
a. Rule 133, Sec. 2
b. Cases
People v. Pajenado, 31 SCRA 812 (1970)
People v. Verzola, 80 SCRA 600 (1977)
3. Administrative Cases
a. Rule 133, Sec.
T. Presumptions
1. Conclusive presumptions
a. Rule 131, §2
b. Cases
4|K L M N o t e s _ E v i d e n c e

Molina v. CA, 109 Phil 769 (1960)


Fige v. CA, 233 SCRA 586 (1994)
2. Disputable presumptions
a. Rule 131, §3
b. Cases
People v. Padiernos, 69 SCRA 484 (1976)
People v. Pablo, 213 SCRA 1 (1992)
Pascual v. Angeles, 4 Phil. 604 (1905)
Ormachea v. Trillana, 13 Phil. 194 (1909)
Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178 (1925)
County Court of Ulster City v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979)
3. Rule 131, §4: Legitimacy or Illegitimacy
NOTE: Rule 131, §5 and §6 (New provisions)

Examination of Witnesses
1. Rule 132 §1-18
2. Cases
a. Examination in Open Court
People v. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428 (1976)
Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)
b. Cross-Examination
de la Paz, Jr. v. IAC, 154 S 65 (1987)
Fulgado v. CA, 182 S 81 (1990)
Razon v. CA, 207 SCRA 234 (1992)
c. Recalling Witnesses
People v. Rivera, 200 S 786 (1991)
People v. Del Castillo, 25 SCRA 716 (1968)
Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Ong Su, 79 SCRA 207 (1977)
d. Leading Questions
People v. Salomon, 229 SCRA 403 (1994)
State v. Scott, 149 P2d 152 (1944)
e. Impeaching One's Own Witness
Becker v. Eisenstodt, 158 A.2d 706 (1960)
f. Impeachment By Bias
U.S. v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984)
U.S. v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720 (2d Cir.1976)
g. Impeachment By Prior Inconsistent Statement
Villalon, Jr. v. IAC, 144 S 443 (1986)
People v. Resabal, 50 Phil 780 (1927)
U.S. v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1984)
h. Impeachment By Other Means
U.S. v. Mercado, 20 Phil. 127 (1913)
Mosley v. Commonwealth, 420 SW2d 679 (1967)
Coles v. Harsh, 276 P. 248 (1929)
U.S. v. Medical Therapy Services, 583 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1978)
Newton v. State, 127 A. 123 (Md. 1924)
State v. Oswalt, 381 P. 2d 617 (1963)
i. Exclusion of Witnesses
People v. Sandal, 54 Phil. 883 (1930)
State v. Bishop, 492 P2d 509 (1972)
5|K L M N o t e s _ E v i d e n c e

j. Refreshing Recollection
State v. Peoples, 319 S.E. 2d 177 (1984)
V. Authentication and Proof of Documents
1. Rule 132 §19-33
2. Cases
a. Proof of private documents
Buñag v. CA, 158 SCRA 299 (1988)
b. Ancient documents
Bartolome v. IAC, 183 SCRA 102 (1990)
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA, 197 SCRA 234 (1991)
c. Proof of foreign judgments
Pacific Asia Overseas v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 122 (1988)
Zalamea v. CA, 228 SCRA 23 (1993)
d. Documents in unofficial language
Pacific Asia Overseas v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 122 (1988)
People v. Monleon, 74 SCRA 263 (1976)
People v. Salison, 253 SCRA 758 (1996)
People v. Lazaro, 317 SCRA 435 (1999)
IBM Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117221, April 13, 1999
W. Offer and Objection
1. Rule 132 §34-40
2. Cases
a. When evidence considered offered
People v. Franco, 269 SCRA 211 (1997)
PB Com v. CA, 195 SCRA 567 (1991)
Tabuena v. CA, 196 SCRA 650 (1991)
b. When to make objection
People v. Java, 227 SCRA 668 (1993)
Catuira v. CA, 236 SCRA 398 (1994)
Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, 186 SCRA 385 (1990)
People v. Cariño, 165 SCRA 664 (1988)
De los Reyes v. IAC, 176 SCRA 394 (1989)
People v. Yatco, 97 Phil. 940 (1955)
PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines, Inc., 212 SCRA 194 (1992)
Vda. de Oñate v. CA, 250 SCRA 283 (1995)
X. Weight & Sufficiency of Evidence
1. Rule 133
2. Cases
People v. Cruz, 134 SCRA 512 (1985)
U.S. v. Lasada, 18 Phil. 90 (1910)
People. v. Abendan, 82 Phil. 711 (1948)
People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
People v. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624 (1995)

You might also like