VI. HEARSAY RULE
29 Rule 130,
PEOPLE v CUSI G.R. No. L-20986, August 14, 1965
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
X was testifying as prosecution witness regarding the extrajudicial confession
made to him by Y, saying that the latter, aside from admitting his participation in
the commission of the offense charged, revealed that other persons conspired
with him to commit the offense, mentioning the names of the alleged co-
conspirators. The prosecuting officer asked the witness to mention in court the
names of Y’s alleged co-conspirators. Counsel for the accused co-conspirators
objected to this, upon the ground that such would be tantamount to hearsay. The
witness was allowed to answer the question and name his co-conspirators except
those who had raised the objection. Must X have been allowed to answer the
question in full?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
YES. Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that while the testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of facts
asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it may be admitted if the
purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that
the statement was made or the tenor of such statement.
In the present case, the purpose of the prosecuting officer is nothing more than to
establish the fact that the accused Y had mentioned to X the names of those who
conspired with him to commit the offense charged, without claiming that Y’s
statement or the answer to be given by X would be competent and admissible
evidence to show that the persons so named really conspired with Y.
PEOPLE v GADDI, G.R. No. 74065; February 27, 1989
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
Y pleaded not guilty, but was held guilty by the trial court for murder. The trial
court gave weight and credence to the testimony of X who confessed that Y
admitted the killing to him. Was the trial court correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
YES.
Confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong
presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly
confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience. Proof that a
person confessed to the commission of a crime can be presented in evidence
without violating the hearsay rule which only prohibits a witness from testifying as
to those facts which he merely learned from other persons but not as to those
facts which he "knows of his own knowledge: that is, which are derived from his
own perception." The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt
of the offense charged, may be given in evidence against him' (Sec.
Rules of Court).
Here, when X testified that the appellant, who probably was bothered by his
conscience, admitted the killing to him, there was no violation of the hearsay rule
as X was testifying to a fact which he knows of his own personal knowledge; that
is, he was testifying to the fact that the appellant told him that he stabbed Z, and
not to the truth of the appellant's statement.
DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS v REYES G.R. NO. 108229 August 24, 1993
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
Z, in its suit against X, instead of presenting its witness filed a motion praying that
it intended to take the depositions of some Taiwan nationals. The lower court
granted the deposition which was in compliance with the Rules on taking of
testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories under Rules of Court. The
Court of Appeals affirmed. May said depositions be received in evidence against X?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
NO.
PRESENTATION THEREOF MAY BE OPPOSED ON GROUND OF HEARSAY. — Any
deposition offered to prove the facts therein set out during a trial or hearing, in
lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court, may be opposed
and excluded on the ground that it is hearsay: the party against whom it is
offered has no opportunity to cross-examine the deponent at the time that his
testimony is offered. It matters not that that opportunity for cross-examination
was afforded during the taking of the deposition; for normally, the opportunity for
cross-examination must be accorded a party at the time that the testimonial
evidence is actually presented against him during the trial or hearing.
LEA MER INDUSTRIES v MALAYAN INSURANCE G.R. No. 161745
September 30, 2005
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
Z entered into a contract of carriage with X, for the shipment of some cargo of the
latter. During the voyage, the vessel sank, resulting in the loss of the cargo. Y as
insurer compensated the lost cargo, and demanded reimbursement from X, which
refused to comply. Y sued X. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding
that the cause of the loss was a fortuitous event which was the bad weather
brought about by a typhoon, and held that X had no knowledge of the incoming
typhoon. The lower court relied upon the survey report of W, the cargo surveyor,
who did not testify during the trial. Was the lower court correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
PARTLY.
That witnesses must be examined and presented during the trial, and that their
testimonies must be confined to personal knowledge is required by the Rules on
Evidence, which states:
"Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
excluded. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules."
An exception to the foregoing rule is that on "independently relevant statements."
A report made by a person is admissible if it is intended to prove the tenor, not
the truth, of the statements. Independent of the truth or the falsity of the
statement given in the report, the fact that it has been made is relevant. Here,
the hearsay rule does not apply.
In the instant case, the trial court correctly refused to admit W’s Affidavit, which
respondent had offered as evidence. Well-settled is the rule that, unless the
affiant is presented as a witness, an affidavit is considered hearsay. However, the
referral to W’s Report was in relation to accused’s final Adjustment Report.
Evidently, it was only the existence of the Survey Report that was testified to. The
admissibility of that Report as part of the testimonies of the witnesses was
correctly ruled upon by the trial court.
PATULA v PEOPLE G.R. No. 164457. April 11, 2012
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
X was charged with estafa and pled not guilty. During the direct-
examination of Y who was the second and last witness of the Prosecution,
petitioner’s counsel continuously objected and questioned the evidence and
testimony of Y on the ground that they were hearsay because the persons who
actually made the entries were not themselves presented in court. They also
regarded Y’s testimonies to be irrelevant because they were not proof of estafa
but of falsification, an offense not alleged in the information. The Prosecution’s
defense was that the ledgers was done in the ordinary course of business and,
therefore, exempt from the hearsay rule, as per Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court. Was Y’s testimony admissible as evidence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
NO.
Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, states that witness can testify only to
those facts that she knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
Here, since Y was not the one who prepared the ledgers, her testimony could not
be considered reliable. As to the Prosecution’s defense, the Prosecution and the
RTC failed to consider the requisites in applying Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court, such as that the person who made the entry must be dead or unable to
testify. However, this is not true with the current case. The testimony is therefore
proven to be hearsay and inadmissible.
ESTRADA v DESIERTO 367 SCRA 108 (2001)
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
X, who was then President of the Philippines, pursuant to his resignation, left the
Malacanang, and his seat was taken over by W his then Vice President. X now
goes to the court to contest the legitimacy of W’s Presidency, arguing that he
never resigned as President, and hence, claims to still be the lawful President of
the Philippines. Among the pieces of evidence offered to prove that X had indeed
resigned from the Presidency is the Angara Diary which was an account of his last
few moments of being present in the Malacanang. Is the Angara Diary
inadmissible as evidence for being hearsay?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
NO. The statements cannot be regarded as hearsay evidence because the same
can be properly categorized as independently relevant statements. Independently
relevant statements are those which are “independent” from the truth of the
statements. Independently relevant statements may be classified into statements
which consist of the very facts in issue and those which are circumstantial
evidence of the facts in issue, such as the statements of a person showing his
state of mind or statements of a person from which an inference may be made as
to the state of mind of another. Pursuant to this, it may well be said that the
entries in the Angara diary may be regarded as containing statements regarding
the state of mind of X, hence constituting circumstantial evidence of his intent to
resign.
ESPINELI v PEOPLE G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
Z, a news anchor, was shot by unidentified malefactors who immediately fled on
board a waiting car. Meanwhile, NBI arrested one Y for Illegal Possession of
Deadly Weapon. Y confided he had vital information regarding the said shooting. Y
said he saw X, accused herein and W board a red car, and that both were armed
and that X told W “Ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Z.” Y posted but
eventually jumped bail and was never heard of again. A NBI Agent testified on
these facts during the trial. The trial court convicted X for murder but the Court of
Appeals modified it to homicide. X posits that the CA should not have affirmed the
conviction by RTC as the latter erred in convicting him based on unproven,
inadmissible circumstantial evidence. OSG, representing the People, concurs with
accused and recommends acquittal. Was Y’s statement admissible against X?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
YES. The statements cannot be regarded as hearsay evidence because the same
can be properly categorized as independently relevant statements. Independently
relevant statements are those which are “independent” from the truth of the
statements. Independently relevant statements may be classified into statements
which consist of the very facts in issue and those which are circumstantial
evidence of the facts in issue, such as the statements of a person showing his
state of mind or statements of a person from which an inference may be made as
to the state of mind of another. Here, the NBI Agent testified that he had
investigated Y and reduced into writing the latter’s statement against X.
GULAM v SPOUSES SANTOS G.R. No. 151458 August 31, 2006
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
The RTC dismissed X’s complaint against Y for specific performance, arguing that
under the circumstances the failure of the X to pay their correlative obligation was
not a casual breach but it was a breach of contract tainted with fraud or malice as
distinguished from mere negligence. X raises his wife’s statement that the latter
told him that payments were made on dates stipulated in the Contract to Sell
between X and Y. X insists that the CA erred in holding that his testimony with
regard to the payments made by his wife was hearsay. X argues that the purpose
of such testimony was merely to establish the fact that such statement was made.
Is X’s argument tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
NO. It is a hornbook doctrine of evidence that a witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, which means those facts which
are derived from his perception. A witness may not testify as to what he merely
learned from others either because he was told or read or heard the same. Such
testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of
what he has learned. The hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the
trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are
not given under oath or solemn affirmation and, more importantly, have not been
subjected to cross-examination by opposing counsel to test the perception,
memory, veracity, and articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon
whose reliability on which the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.
True, X’s statements may be considered as independently relevant statements
and may be admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had
been thus uttered. However, the admissibility of his testimony to such effect
should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency. Admissibility of evidence
depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains
to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade. In this
case, both the RTC and the CA refused to give credence to X’s testimony, and the
Court finds no reason to doubt the assessments made by both courts. Even
assuming that his wife, indeed, told him that payments were made on these
dates, still, it does not follow that it is sufficient proof to establish his claim of
overpayment. These should be weighed vis-à-vis the other evidence on record,
which, as appraised by the RTC and the CA, do not support petitioner’s claim.
LEODEGARIO BAYANI v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 154947
August 11, 2004
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
Upon his conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa bilang 22, X contends that Y’s
testimony stating that Z told her that it was X who asked her to have the check
rediscounted, is hearsay and, as such, even if he did not object thereto is
inadmissible in evidence against him. He avers that the prosecution failed to
present Z as a witness, depriving him of his right to cross-examine her. X
contends that any declaration made by Z to Y is inadmissible in evidence against
him. Is X correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
YES, however, the evidence belies the X’s assertion that the prosecution failed to
adduce evidence that he issued the subject check. His indictment was still proper.
We agree with the submission of X that Y’s testimony, that Z told her that the X
requested that the subject check be rediscounted, is hearsay. Y had no personal
knowledge of such request of the X to Z. Neither is the information relayed by Z to
Y as to the X’s request admissible in evidence against the latter, because the
prosecution failed to present Y as a witness, thus, depriving the X of his right of
cross-examination. However, the evidence belies X’s assertion that the
prosecution failed to adduce evidence that he issued the subject check. Y testified
that when she talked to X upon Z’s suggestion, X admitted that he gave the check
to Z, but claimed that the latter "borrowed" the check from him.
LEODEGARIO BAYANI v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 154947
August 11, 2004
Digested by: Ecarma, Kim D.
QUESTION
X was charged with parricide for the killing of his wife with the use of alcohol
intended for a lantern, doused her with it and set her ablaze at their home. The
day after the burning incident, an attending police officer was able to interview the
victim at her hospital bed; she was asked if she felt that she was dying, and she
said "yes." Said police officer then reduced her statement in writing and the same
was attested thru the victim's thumb mark in the presence of the nurse who
signed as witness. Another police officer also testified that during his investigation
immediately after the crime was reported, he went to the crime scene and was
able to talk to the daughter of the victim, wherein the latter told him that X was
the one who set her mother ablaze inside their house. The attending physician of
the victim also testified that a certain Z told him that X was the one who mauled
and set the victim ablaze. Eventually X was convicted.
X opposes his conviction arguing that the court erred in basing such conviction on
mere hearsay. Is X’s contention tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
NO.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is
sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth
of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if
the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact
that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the
truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such
statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement
may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is
not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue
or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is the
doctrine of independently relevant statements.

In the instant case, all these requisites to support a conviction based on

circumstantial evidence, not to mention the dying declaration of the deceased
victim herself, are existing in the instant case. Thus, the testimonies of the
testifying police authorities are in the nature of an independently relevant
statement where what is relevant is the fact that X’s daughter and Z made such
statement, and the truth and falsity thereof is immaterial. In such a case, the
statement of the witness is admissible as evidence and the hearsay rule does not
apply.