- Startling occurrence: Stampede
- Statements made during, immediately prior or subsequent
- Statements made were about the circumstances of the startling occurrence
- Made before the declarant had opportunity to contrive
- Right after the crime
- Right before the crime
- During the PI?
- There was a gang war between the gangs of the victim and accused
- They knew where the victim was
- They brought a knife with them
- When they saw the policeman, they said the statement and handed the knife (with blood!), and it is not startling to see a prison guard inside a prisoner.
- Requisites:
- The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify
- The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer
- The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries
- The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious
- The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty
- Engineer, who had personal knowledge, was not the one who made the entry
- The book keeper, who had NO personal knowledge, i.e. INCOMPETENT, was the one who made it
- The entrant, book keeper is still alive!
- Basta may formal duty! Para maging regular and ordinary …duty
- Merely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
- Requisites:
- Entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his duties or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law
- The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same
- Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records
- Records of birth in NSO
- Transcript of records in UP
- All government documents filled up and executed (duly processed).
On current events:
Super Ferry Case
4am
Captain: winds were strong
But passengers: no wind, waters were calm
They didn't want to jump because it was 4am but it's too dark.
If there were others that would testify that they heard many said that there was no wind, would it be admissible? Granting there were already two passengers already who have said that paalis pa lang ng pier, the ferry was listing (leaning?) already…
VAA: the ship would probably lean to a single direction because of negligent arrangement of cargo.
ADMISSIBLE?
Aida: YES. Under Section 42.
E.g. Ultra Incident "WOWowee"
e.g. What if the people there were shouting stuff…
"Hoy, yung bata naapakan!"
"Wag magtulakan!"
"Hoy, may naapakan na!"
If a person is presented in court to testify on the sights and sounds during the incident, and the person was there, ADMISSIBLE?
Claimant: the parent of a boy who died in the incident
Prove: death of the boy + negligence/lack of foresight of the organizers of the event
*don't say ADMISSIBLE because it was derived from his personal experience: by saying this, you're saying that it is admissible as evidence of IRS
*ADMISSIBLE UNDER RES GESTAE: elements:
HEARSAY: yes, the witness (parent of the boy who died) heard someone (out of court declarant) shout "Hoy, yung bata naapakan!"
-statements (out of court statement) was made during
-not "Ang gwapo ni Piolo!" - which is irrelevant to the startling occurrence
-the out of court declarant, who said statement DURING OCCURRENCE, would not have time to contrive a falsity
WHY RES GESTAE ADMISSIBLE?
Human nature that when there's a startling occurrence…the statements made during or immediately prior or subsequent thereto are true!
-people tend to echo the statements, by its very nature, when there's a startling occurrence, it may be echoed when there's many people.
(by very nature, multiple hearsay because many people would probably have heard the statements and then may have heard it from someone else)
Vs. Pedigree
(single hearsay): declarant (who's making statement regarding the pedigree of a relative) would make an act or declaration to the witness.
Vs. Family Tradition
(multiple hearsay)
-tradition: passed on from one generation to another…
e.g. Engraving in the ring, e.g. name of the original owner, then it was passed on from generation to generation…the last tagapagmana wouldn't have personal knowledge of who the owner is but there's a family tradition that there was such a family member in the
ON AGE: it's hearsay!
-you don’t have personal knowledge when you were born because when you were born, you were unable to perceive what happened.
Vs. Common reputation
(multiple hearsay)
-there's a consensus + not really controverted
Pag current events, not common reputation (since it is controverted)
VAA:…"unless when you're talking about corruption"
-it refers to moral character
-monuments and inscriptions in public places
e.g. there's a marker in somewhere stating that an event happened in that place. You don't have personal knowledge that the said event happened but it is admissible
So in the Super Ferry Case, even if you don't personally know WON the ship is indeed sinking, when you hear it from panicking people, you'll probably jump! (you'll never know if the person from whom you've heard it knows it personally also!)
REVIEW on common reputation
VAA: why require 30 years for facts of public or general knowledge then when it comes to marriage or moral character, no need for 30 years?
AIDA: the latter two would spark more interest to people in the community
VAA: when morals, you don't only refer to the bible
Section 42 (part 2) - verbal acts
"So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act, material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae."
-Single or multiple hearsay?
On par1: it's the event talking through the declarant, not the declarant only
On par2: admissible,
e.g. If A gave the property to B
(mere act of giving the property to B) - equivocal, unclear, could have many interpretations
But if A says, "B sa'yo na!", the statement gives it legal significance, i.e. ownership
WHY Admissible:
E.g. If a train is about to collide with another train, there are persons who already exlaimed, "Babangga!", ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF RES GESTAE?
SPONTANEOUS. Part of res gestae. Under the influence of the startling event.
People vs. Tampus
H: The spontaneous statement made by the 2 prisoners right after they got out of the bathroom where the crime happened was held to be RES GESTAE
Do you agree with the ruling? Ma'am disagrees!
3 statements:
But only concerned on the statement right after the crime was committed:
*NOT RES GESTAE: It was premeditated!
Why premeditated:
-and they were willing to surrender!
Aida: "When there's a gang war, it's not a pretty sight."
R130.42: Res Gestae = the things done + statements made
| 1st par | 2nd par |
| Immediately before, during, or after | During |
| Kelangan magulat! | Di kelangan magulat |
e.g. there's a rape. The law enforcers went inside the house in hot pursuit w/o search warrant. A kid, hiding covered with a curtain, heard someone say, while pointing to a spot on the house with bejeweled finger, "Dali, dun mo ilagay!"
Owner charged with possession. The owner counter-sued. Kid presented in court. ADMISSIBLE?
UF: WON there was illegality?
ADMISSIBLE under paragraph 2
Equivocal act: pointing
Statement: "Dali, dun mo ilagay!"
ISSUE: WON there was illegality
Section 43 – ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
Verbal or written?
Written: Entries eh! Business documents!
Documents [R130.2]: evidence offered as proof of their contents
One who made: ENTRANT
One presented in court: WITNESS
EVIDENCE: out of court entry
OUT OF COURT: yes. Dead or unable to testify nga eh!
*Dapat, at the time he wrote it, he knew personally what it contains = COMPETENT! Kahit anong exception sa hearsay rule, dapat competent!
IS THE DECLARANT=ENTRANT? Yes. Just written.
SO hearsay does not apply only to testimony.
Canque vs. CA
F: Entries in the Book of Collectible Accounts were made by the bookkeeper but had no personal knowledge because it was the engineer who made the receipts.
H: Not admissible under R130.43
-entrant still alive
-entrant had no personal knowledge
*BUT other evidences presented sufficiently showed that CANQUE previously paid SOCCOR w/o contesting billings made
VAA: But wasn't it made in the ordinary or regular course of business?
Still,
Cf: Rules on Electronic evidence
*in here, it is single hearsay
"In the ordinary or regular course of business or duty"
VAA: Commercial business dapat?
Regalado:
Legal
Contractual
moral
Religious
e.g. business: the cashier would make entries on the receipts whenever someone would buy from the store. If the owner of the store would present such receipt in court, admissible?
YES, under R130.43, provided ALL THE ELEMENTS WERE COMPLIED WITH
e.g. one who makes inventories
security guards
"at or near the time of transaction"
-the regularity and the promptness of the act makes it trustworthy!
-so if receipt was made 5 days after the purchase, it is irregular and doubtful…
e.g. Is employment relation required? What if Anton borrows a book from the library and entered into his library card that he rented this book on this date and he died. Library wanted to claim damages for the lost book, and presented the library card as evidence.
UF: Anton stole it!
IF: that Anton was the last person who borrowed it
*it is documentary evidence: it is presented as proof of its contents
---presented the original borrower's card of Anton
BUT IS IT HEARSAY?
No, the library card is not hearsay. The document per se would be shown to prove the fact in issue, i.e. WON Anton borrowed the book, no more need for showing another person to testify on the library card as the library card is already in the court and itself is a good evidence
Section 44 – ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
There are duties which are not enjoined by law
e.g. entries in religious documents: enjoined by the Church
-but would only show who attended, but not the relationship (would not be evidence of the truth of the contents)
-If government kasi, there's probative value.
e.g. of official documents
R132, Section 23: on prima facie but same!
R130, Section 24: dapat on admissibility lang! So don't be confused!
*admissibility: because official records:
*probative value: prima facie
-pero dito, pinaghalo!
*prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein: burden of proof is on the other party to disprove it…(putol)
e.g. Birth Certificate:
-person born
-has a name
-date of birth
-name of parents…
*These are entries in an official record
*these entries are evidence that these entries are TRUE, unless rebutted
BUT ADMISSIBILITY DIFFERENT: Even if not prima facie evidence, may be admissible. Admissibility is based on reliability and trust worthiness.
Lao vs. Standard
F: Lao owns two trucks, one of the trucks hit another truck which was insured. Lao claims that the insured truck was driven by a qualified driver, as shown by the MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT REPORT (made 3 days after the incident). The police blotter, however says that the driver of the bumped truck was driven by an unqualified driver so the insurance company refused to give the proceeds.
H: For Standard Insurance
*blotter vs. Motor vehicle accident report
-but the MVAR was made 3 days after!!!!
e.g. there was a 2 year-old child beated by the persons who took care of her. Everytime she was tortured, she made sumbong to the neighbor. Neighbor presented neighbor to prove identity of assailant. [P v Cariquez] ADMISSIBLE?
Hearsay. But under Res Gestae so admissible
-immediately after the startling occurrence
e.g. What if the grandfather who sexually molested a 2 1/2 year old child. The child made sumbong to her mom. ADMISSIBLE.
Yes. Pv Velasquez
e.g. Street in San Juan not very wide. There's a Jeep who belongs to a policeman, then a Fierra owned by a priest, they were neighbors. There was an altercation, policeman killed. Neighbors said, "Ay si father pinatay nung police!" then the policemen arrived later, the witnesses-neighbors were interviewed and said that the policeman shot the priest. Naturally, the neighbors won't want to testify (kilala sila ni policeman eh), so the investigators would
Admissible under Res Gestae [P v. Dela cruz]
But what about
DBP vs. CA?
Not a res gestae evidence: there was time between time when statements made and the time when the statement was given to the police. No spontaneity.
VAA: plus the identification had no factual basis! Can't surely say that the ones who burned the station were NPA's. But in P vs. Dela Cruz, they were sure of the identity of the assailant.
Plus focus on SPONTANEITY: no gap between the hours when startling occurrence
On deck at the end of the meeting:
Aida
Odena
Simon
(Ms. Salazar)
No comments:
Post a Comment