hearsay evidence

2. Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge.
– A witness can testify only to those facts which he or
she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is,
which are derived from his or her own perception.

3. 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 offered 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.

4. 1. Offered by a witness in court to prove the truth of a fact, not based
on his personal knowledge, but on the knowledge of another
person who is not on the witness stand. The witness, in testifying,
asserts that the facts are true by merely repeating in court what
someone else has told him outside the court.
2. A witness can only testify on the truth of facts within his personal
knowledge
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise
provided in these Rules.

5. Specific elements of hearsay evidence
To be hearsay, the testimony of a witness, regarding a statement
made by another person, is given for the purpose of establishing
the truth of the fact asserted in the statement (Espineli v.
People, June 9, 2014.)
1. There must be an out-of-court statement;
2. The statement is made out of court is repeated; and
3. Offered by the witness in court to prove the truth of the
matters asserted by the statement.

6. Elements of Hearsay in General
1. It is a statement other than one made by the Declarant;
2. The statement is
(a) an Oral or written assertion; or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person;
3. The Statement is intended as an assertion;
4. It is made while the witness, other than the declarant, is
testifying at a Trial or hearing; and
5. It is offered to prove the Truth of the facts asserted therein.
(ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 37, par. 1).

7. To constitute hearsay there must be:
1. An out-of-court statement, oral, written or nonverbal
conduct, made by one other than the one made by the
declarant or witness testifying at a trial;
2. The out-of-court statement must be offered to prove
the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court
statement. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered
for the truth of the matter asserted

8. • Summary:
The presentation of original exhibits is not valid under Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court. If the original document is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or recorded in a public office, it doesn't need
to be presented. However, all exhibits aren't necessarily public
documents, and a certified copy can prove its contents.
Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc
G. R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012

9. • FACTS: After the People Power Revolution in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino created
the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to investigate and recover the
alleged wealth amassed by then-President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family,
relatives, and associates. In 1987, the PCGG filed a Complaint for Reversion,
Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting, and Damages against Ferdinand E. Marcos,
Imelda R. Marcos, and respondents Imee Marcos-Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta,
Bongbong Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, and Gregorio Araneta III. Four amended Complaints
were filed, imputing active participation and collaboration of others in the alleged illegal
activities. The court ruled that all presented evidence were hearsay, as they were
merely photocopies and not authenticated by the persons who executed them. The court
found the allegations against the YEUNGS baseless, as they failed to demonstrate how
Glorious Sun was used for dollar salting or that they were dummies of the Marcoses.
• ISSUE: W/N The Sandiganbayan erred in granting the demurrers to evidence filed by
respondents?
Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc
G. R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012

10. • RULING: NO. Sandiganbayan granted demurrers' permission to
present evidence, stating the petitioner's burden is to prove
allegations through preponderance of evidence. The photocopied
documents violate the best evidence rule, as they must be original
documents. The court did not provide a reason or compelling ground
for not presenting originals.
In order that secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be
proof by satisfactory evidence of (1) due execution of the original; (2)
loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals and (3)
reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to
produce the original.
Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc
G. R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012

11. • None of the abovementioned requirements were complied by the
plaintiff. Exhibits ‘P’, ‘Q’, ‘R’, ‘S’, and ‘T’ were all photocopies. ‘P’, ‘R’,
and ‘T’ were affidavits of persons who did not testify before the
Court. Exhibit ‘S’ is a letter, which is clearly a private document.
• Petitioner having failed to observe the best evidence rule rendered
the offered documentary evidence futile and worthless in alleged
accumulation of ill-gotten wealth insofar as the specific allegations
herein were concerned.
• It is emphasized, even if originals of these affidavits were presented,
they would still be considered hearsay evidence if the affiants do
not testify and identify them.
Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc
G. R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012

12. What are the reasons for excluding hearsay?
A. The reasons for excluding hearsay are the following:
a) The lack of opportunity on the part of the party against which it is
offered to cross-examine the declarant, that is, the person who made
the statement.
b) The statement or declaration is not made under oath
c) The court does not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of
the declarant. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 3 April 2001).

13. Is hearsay admissible if not objected to?
Hearsay if not objected to may be admitted and considered as sufficient to prove
the facts therein asserted.
Hearsay alone may be insufficient to establish a fact but when no objection is
made thereto it is, like any other evidence, to be considered and given the
importance it deserves.
Because of a party's failure to timely object, the evidence becomes part of the
evidence in the case. Thereafter, all the parties are considered bound by any
outcome arising from the offer of evidence properly presented.
In Advance Paper Corp., the SC took into consideration sales invoices, despite
the proponent's failure to present in court the secretaries who had prepared
them, because the adverse party had failed to timely object to the offer of the
sales invoices on the ground of hearsay.

14. Advance Paper Corporation V Arma Traders Corporation
G.R. No. 176897, December 11, 2013
The respondents failed to object to the admissibility of the sales invoices on the
ground that they are hearsay
The court cannot disregard evidence unless it is objected to. If a party wishes to
reject the evidence, they must state their objection in a timely manner and
cannot raise it on appeal. The evidence becomes part of the case, and all parties
are bound by the outcome. In Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr. v. Heirs of Liberato
M. Ureta, the principle was relaxed in cases where other evidence or
circumstances supported the fact. In the case of the identification of sales
invoices, the respondents objected to the offer "for the purpose [to] which they
are being offered" only, not on the grounds of hearsay.

15. Is hearsay admissible if not objected to?
In a criminal case, however, hearsay even if not
objected to should not be accorded any probative
value against the accused because it would violate his
constitutional right of confrontation. (People v.
Melosantos, 245 SCRA 569, 576 [1995]. See People v.
Mamalias, 328 SCRA 760, 772-773 [2000]).

16. Concepts of Hearsay Evidence
1. Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its
probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of
some other person not on the witness stand (REGALADO,
supra at 776).
2. Hearsay evidence also includes all assertions, which (although
derived from personal knowledge) have not been subject to
cross-examination by the adversary at the trial in which they
are being offered against him (5 HERRERA, supra at 564).

17. Non-Hearsay –Admissible.
A. 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 offered to rebut an express or
implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
motive; or
c) One of the identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (REVISED
RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 130, Sec. 37, par. 2); and
B. When the purpose of introducing the statement is not to prove the truth of the facts
therein but only the making of the statements and are admissible in evidence when the
making of the statement is relevant.