An Equally Important Concept, The Hearsay Evidence Rule. Correct no?

The General Rule would

be, which gives rise to the concept:

“The witness can only testify based on personal knowledge.” Except in the situations that would
fall in any of the exemptions which are actually enumerated in the rules. Set forth subsequently, starting
off my dear students, from Section 37 down to Section 47, that’s 37 to 47, practically, these are the
exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule.

Take Note, that the hearsay evidence rule applies to both ORAL and DOCUMENTARY Evidence.
Please take note of that.

So I repeat ha, that when you testify, you can only testify of course based on your own personal
knowledge. In fact, even in ano, in your Judicial Affidavit Rule taken from the Supreme Court Circular 12-
8-8, and even diba in the affidavit based on the rules on summary procedures, if you can recall diba, it
specifically provides that the testimony must always be based on the personal knowledge of the witness
or the person who is supposed to testify. So these are actually just a reiteration of these particular s
principle.

Like what I said last night, there are certain exceptions starting off with the so called, Independent
Relevant Statements, I repeat, the Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements. Along with one
provision, it’s in the book of Regalado, which is part of your rule of examination diba on children, and
particularly in cases referenced to abuses committed to a child, the law allows a certain degree of hearsay
evidence. But like what the provision states, the court has certainly to consider the capacity actually or
the competency of the witness testifying. Otherwise these independently relevant statements are:

Independently relevant statements, witnesses may testify to statement made by another person
not to prove the truth of that statement, but only to prove that-that statement was uttered by that
person. That is not hearsay in a way, because that may be covered by the principle of the doctrine of
independent relevant statements.

That is actually the second, along with the one which talks about rule on examination on child
witness. Where the law allows a certain degree of hearsay evidence as part of the testimony of children
who are actually victims of abuses.

I hope you don’t mind no, the rest you just take note of those.

As far im concerned, when I will give you your brain damaging exam, I will center my questions
on only two. The dying declaration and Part of the Res Gestae. The rest naman I know has been discussed
exhaustively by your teacher on evidence.

Now the second exception, and the most popular one actually among of the exceptions of the
hearsay evidence rule is the so called well Dying Declaration which is termed as what again, there’s
another term for dying declaration: “Ante Mortem Statements”. Okay kasi there might be questions in the
bar where the examiner might not be using the word dying declaration but instead will be using the word
ante mortem statements so you are referring actually to the dying declarations.
 In connection with this concept, you really have no choice since this is very important but to
memorize the four essential requisites, so that a dying declaration will be admissible as evidence by way
of exception to the hearsay evidence rule.

And what are these? Four requisites:

1.) That the death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of such fact;
2.) That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death;
3.) That the statement refers to the facts which the victim is competent to testify to;
4.) That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is subject of the inquiry.

I’m telling you ha, all of you to memorize all the four requisites before you will take your brain
damaging final examinations on April 4, 2016.

Now, does it matter that time when the declaration was made to the actual death of the one who
made the dying declaration, would it affect the admissibility of the dying declaration. Does it really
matter? Maybe he made the statement which will become recognized as dying declaration, but he only
dies two minutes thereafter, would that affect the admissibility of the dying declaration?

No, as long as the declarant is aware of his imminent death.

Correct, that is the most important. It doesn’t actually matter as long as at the time he made the
particular statements, he was aware actually of an impending death. But you just take note however, as
far as dying declaration is concerned, which may be oral or written, this is admissible only insofar as it
refers to facts regarding the cause and the surrounding circumstances of declarant’s death. I repeat, Take
note however, aside from the four requisites that you have enumerated, that this, I repeat, ante mortem
statement is only admissible, insofar as it refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding
circumstances of a declarant s death.

If these are therefore incidents which occurred prior, definitely that will not be considered. Like
diba there was an example in the book of Regalado, which says about the frontal encounter diba, prior to
the incident which gave rise to the commission of the crime and which gave rise to the victim’s making a
dying declaration before he died that would not be covered by the concept of dying declaration for
purposes my dear students of admissibility.

Like what I said ha, I will only discuss on two, actually four na rin, the independent relevant
statements, the law examination child witnesses, dying declaration, and then the part of the res gestae.
It doesn’t mean to say you will not read it and know it because likewise I am not the one taking the bar
examinations, but I presume anyway that you’ve been acquainted with this already otherwise it will take
a long time for us to finish the rules on evidence my dear students because e. I assure you however, that
when I ask questions in your brain damaging final examinations, I will never ask questions, on these
exceptions which actually, can this be enumerated for me one is…

1. Declaration Against interest – the declaration made by a person deceased OR unable to

testify, against the interest of the declarant.
2. 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.
 3. Common Reputation - Learned previous testimony in a previous proceeding, whether judicial
or administration

Okay, Those are some of but the exceptions but the most important one is part of the res gestae,
what is this?

Part of the Res Gestae: Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place
OR immediately prior OR subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof.

In Two Words “Things Done”. There must be a startling occurrence. Diba sometimes we say
_____________.

And just like there are four requisites for Dying Declaration. There are how many requisites in the
Parts of Res Gestae: which again you have to memorize, I’m sorry you really have to do this. If you can
even memorize the whole Rules of Court, then better.

Requisites for Admissibility of Res Gestae, The statement must:

1. Be Spontaneous
2. Made while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
3. Relates to the circumstances of the startling occurrence.
4. Must be involuntary and simultaneously wrung from the witness by the impact of the
occurrence

We are now done with the hearsay and exceptions as provided for by the rules.

We move on to the Concept of Opinion Rule: Generally, the witness is not allowed to testify based
on an opinion. When you become a lawyer and you feel that the witness or an ordinary witness not unless
he can fall on the EXCEPTIONS IS TO TESTIFY BASED ON OPINION DEFINITELY OBJECT.

Exceptions:

1. That it is made by an Expert witness

2. That it is made an ordinary who can testify on any of the following instances enumerated by
sec 50 of the rules:
a. If a witness is asked to prove that the accused was intoxicated at the time of the
commission of a crime. Can you ask the witness that? Is it allowable. Yes, under the
law an ordinary witness may give his opinion based on the emotion, behavior,
condition, or appearance of a person which he has observed.
b. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he has knowledge of
the person or handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or expert witness
c. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with the
former or if the latter is an expert witness

By the way when you become lawyers if you are presenting an expert witness, always seek the
admission from the other counsel that the witness presented is indeed an expert. So the court may rule
on whether or not the witness is an expert witness or not.
 In terms of procedure, actually there is also an advantage if you don’t admit the expertise of the
witness.

Can character be proven in a case? My question is very broad. I won’t specify whether good or
bad character. This is one of the important sections insofar as character evidence is concerned. So you
will not have a problem in the bar examinations, first thing you have to do is to make for qualification
Would you agree with me answering the question at you have determined

In Civil Cases: Generally NO, unless the moral character is pertinent to the issue.
In Criminal Cases: Generally NO, if the accused brought his character by way of defense on his
good moral character. .

I repeat ha, if there is a question on this, classify whether it is in a civil case or whether it is in a
criminal case. If you’re not sure, you furthermore classify whether good moral or bad moral character.
Again, Generally, the prosecution may not prove the BAD Moral Character of the accused which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. Exception: The prosecution may prove BAD
MC at the rebuttal stage if the accused uses his Good Moral Character as a defense.

We are now on Rule 131. Burden of Proof or Onus Probandi. 1.) Preponderance of Evidence. 2.)
Proof Beyond Reasonable doubt. 3.) Clear and Convincing Evidence. 4.) Substantial Evidence.

So you notice oh that this first section of rule 131. Generally you have to prove a fact by presenting oral
or documentary evidence. Except the following:
What Need Not Be Proved:
1. Facts which are presumed
2. Facts which are of judicial notice
3. Facts which are judicially admitted.

You have taken this up in the first semester.in connection with facts which are presumed, definitely it
naturally follows that we talk about presumption of evidence, under our rules what are the
classifications of presumptions?
Two Classifications of Presumptions:
1. Conclusive presumptions:
2. Disputable presumptions

Difference of both is that for disputable presumptions, even though it is satisfactorily proved
it may still be rebutted by sufficient proof to the contrary while in conclusive it may not.

There are only two instances where there are conclusive presumptions, but as far as disputable
presumptions there are many. In fact this rule almost deals only on disputable. But actually before that,
you first classify if it is a presumption of fact or a presumption of law then after that you further classify
whether conclusive or disputable pre.

Classes of Conclusive Presumption

a. Estoppel by Deed – The ownership of the landlord at the start of the tenancy
relation is conclusively presumed as against the tenant.
b. Estoppel in Pais - The fact which the party in estoppel has represented to be true is
conclusively presumed as against him to be true