7. Hearsay and Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule Flashcards
What is Hearsay Evidence?
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. (Sec. 37, Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
The hearsay statement may be:
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. (ibid)
In a police lineup, victim from behind a oneway mirror points to the accused as the one who assaulted him. The victim dies before trial. During the trial, the police officer conducting the lineup is asked who the victim pointed to as the culprit. May the defense object and if so, on what grounds?
A: YES, the defense may object on the ground of hearsay. An out-of-court statement includes not only oral or written assertions but also non-verbal conduct intended as an assertion. The victim’s act of pointing out a person in the lineup is a nonverbal assertion. It is as if the victim was saying, “He’s the one who assaulted me.” The proponent may try to t the identification under the excited-utterance exception. (Riguera, 2020)
When a Statement is NOT Considered as Hearsay:
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. Prior inconsistent statement under oath - 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. Prior consistent statement - 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. Prior statement of identification - One of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (Par. 2, Sec. 37, Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
Q: UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. issued Comprehensive Car Insurance Policy to Rommel Lojo. On December 09, 2005, at around 3:30 p.m., the insured vehicle was bumped at the rear portion by Pascual Liner, Inc.’s bus driven by Leopoldo Cadavido. As a result of the impact, the insured vehicle was pushed forward, causing it to hit another vehicle, an aluminum van driven by Nilo Nuñez. The vehicular accident was investigated by the Traffic Management and Security Department of the PNCC Skyway Corporation, for which Solomon Tatlonghari prepared a Traffic Accident Sketch.
Thereafter, the matter was endorsed to the PNP, for which PO3 Joselito Quila prepared a Traffic Accident Report. Lojo filed a claim with UCPB under his insurance policy, which was approved by UCPB. Thereafter, UCPB filed a Complaint for sum of money for P350,000.00 before the RTC, which was subsequently transferred to MeTC, against Pascual Liner and Cadavido alleging that as a result of Lojo’s receipt of the insurance indemnity it paid arising from the damage caused on the insured vehicle, it was subrogated to the rights of Lojo. Pascual Liner filed its Answer (with Affirmative Defense), denying allegations.
It asserted that the Traffic Accident Report and the Traffic Accident Sketch were not categorical in proving its negligence or that of its employee; rather, these only proved that the driver of the insured vehicle was at fault. Is Hearsay Rule under the Amended Rules of Evidence applicable?
A: NO. At the time when UCPB filed its complaint before the MeTC on December 21, 2009, the prevailing Rules on Evidence was the Rules adopted on March 14, 1989, under which Sec. 36, Rule 130, governed the appreciation of hearsay evidence.
The principle of retroactivity of procedural rules cannot be applied. The Traffic Accident Report serves as the anchor by which liability for negligence is claimed by UCPB. To adopt the amended Rules would affect the manner by which the Traffic Accident Report was appreciated, which could be used as basis for re-examination to determine its admissibility in evidence. This will result into a violation of due process, which will ultimately cause injustice on the part of the respondent who relied on the Rules then existing. As such, we shall continue to be guided by the superseded provisions of the Rules of Court. (UCPB General Insurance, Co. v Pascual Liner, Inc., G.R. 242328, 26 Apr. 2021
Statements made through an Interpreter
GR: Statements made through an interpreter are considered hearsay if a witness is offered to testify to the statements of another person, spoken in a language not understood by him, but translated for him by an interpreter, such witness is not qualified, because he does not speak from personal knowledge. All that he can know as to the testimony is from the interpretation thereof which is in fact given by another person.
XPNs: In cases where the interpreter had been selected:
- By common consent of the parties endeavoring to converse; or
- By a party against whom the statements of the interpreter where offered in evidence (Principal-Agent Rule).
