EVIDENCE

ADMISSIONS ABD
CONFESSIONS
 ADMISSION BY A PARTY
• Rule on Admissions by a party
• The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him. (Rule 130, Sec. 27)
• Example: After a murder, accused goes to his neighbor and tells her, “Nakapatay ako”. His
neighbor can testify on this fact in a murder case against the accused. The admission may be
given in evidence against the accused.
• The admissions of the president of a company as to its indebtedness are binding on the
company under the rule that admissions of liability by a party may be given against it. (Keller &
Co. v. COB, G.R. No. L-68097, 1986)
• Reason
• Based on presumption that noman would declare anything against himself unless such
declarations were true.
 ADMISSION
• Refers to a voluntary acknowledgement, in express terms or by implication, by a party in
interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound, against his interest, of the
existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue. In other words, it is an
acknowledgement of fact/s opposite to the fact/s raised or positions taken in court.
 WHEN IS AN ADMISSION ADMISSIBLE?

• 1. Involve matters of fact, and not of law;

• 2. Be categorical and definite;
• 3. Be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
• 4. Be adverse to the admitter’s interests
• Otherwise: it would be self-serving and inadmissible
 TWO TYPES OF ADMISSIONS
• 1. JUDICIAL ADMISSION - one made in a judicial proceeding under consideration.
• 2. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION - one made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other
than the one under consideration.
 JUIDICIAL VS. EXTRAJUDICIAL
ADMISSION
JUDICIAL ADMISSION EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION
Rule 129, Sec. 4 Rule 130, Sec. 27
Made in course of the proceedings in the same case Out-of-court declaration
Does not require proof; deemed automatically part Requires proof; must be formally offered in
of the record evidence
Conclusive upon the admitter Rebuttable
BUT may be contradicted by showing that:
a. It was made through palpable mistake
b. The imputed admission was not, in fact, made
Admissible, even if it is a self-serving declaration Admissible, only if it is not a self-serving
declaration
 SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
• Unsworn statements made by the declarant out of court and which are favorable to his
interests. But if the declarant takes the stand to testify and be cross-examined, then it is
not self-serving.
• Example: Accused tells neighbor that: “Nakapatay yung barkada namin pero wala akong
kinalaman.” Later on, accused cannot have his neighbor testify in court and say that
Accused went to him and said that he had nothing to do with the killing. Accused’s
statement to the neighbor is self-serving because it was given out of court and it served
his interest.
• Accused may, however, take the stand and explain why he has nothing to do with the
killing.
 SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
• General Rule: Self-serving declarations are not admissible.
• Exceptions:
• 1. Diaries, if it is against interest, or if it is in the nature of books of accounts. Letters prepared not in anticipation of
litigation are not considered self-serving declarations.
• 2. Part of the res gestae, which covers spontaneous statements and verbal acts.
• 3. When in the form of complaint and exclamations of pain and suffering.
• 4. When part of a confession offered by the prosecution. (such as those favorable to the accused, e.g., I shot him
because he was going to stab me.)
• 5. When the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his testimony is a recent fabrication.
• 6. When offered by the opponent.
• 7. When offered without objection or there is waiver.
 REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF SELF-
SERVING DECLARATIONS

• 1. The inherent untrustworthiness of the declarations.

• 2. Allowance would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony.
• 3. If testified by one other than the defendant, such declarations would be hearsay.
 RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
• This rule refers to the maxim, “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet,” which means,
“A thing done among some persons ought not to do harm to another.” (Regalado, 2008
ed.)
• The reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a
man’s own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. It would not only
be inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of
mere unauthorized strangers; and that if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. (People v.
Raquel, G.R. No. 119005, 1996)
 TWO BRANCHES OF THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
• 1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another
(Rule 130, Sec. 29)
• 2. Similar Acts Rule: Evidence of one’s previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar act at another time
(Rule 130, Sec. 35)
• This rule only applies to extrajudicial declarations (People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119006,
2006)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES INTER ALIOS
ACTA RULE (1ST BRANCH)
• 1. Admission by a Co-Partner or Agent (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
• 2. Admission by a Co-Conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 31);
• 3. Admission by Privies (Rule 130, Sec. 32);
• 4. Admission by Silence (Rule 130, Sec. 33; see Tan Siok Kuan v. Returta, G.R. No.
175085, 2016, J. Perez); and
• 5. Interlocking Confessions (People v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, 2008)
 ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY
• The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided. (Rule 130, Sec. 29)
• Example: After a murder, Accused goes to his neighbor and tells her, “Napatay namin ni
Jose si Juan”. His neighbor can testify on this fact in a murder case against Accused; the
declaration may be given in evidence as an admission only against Accused. It is not
admissible against Jose.
• HOWEVER: If the Accused testifies and explains the participation of Jose, then the
testimony is admissible against Jose.
• NOTE: Sec. 28 [now Sec. 29], Rule 130 refers to the first branch of the res inter alios acta
rule. The second branch can be found in Sec. 35, Rule 130—similar acts as evidence.
(Regalado 2008 ed., 758)
 ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR
AGENT
• The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party may be given in evidence
against his co-partner or agent provided that the following requisites are present:
• 1. That the partnership or agency be previously proven by evidence other than the admission itself.
• 2. The act or declaration refers to a matter within the scope of his authority or the partner or agent was
authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject
• 3. The act or declaration was made during the existence of the partnership or agency. (Rule 130, Sec. 30)

• Reason
• Identity of interests between the co-partners or agents.
 ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR
AGENT
• Proving the Partnership, Agency, or Joint Ownership
• 1. Entries in the partnership books made by one partner during the continuance of the
partnership;
• 2. By the separate admissions of all who are sued;
• 3. By the acts, declarations, or conduct of the parties; or
• 4. The act of one and the declarations or conduct of the others
 ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR
AGENT
• The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the party.
• 1. There exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
interested with the party;
• 2. The existence of the joint interest must first be made to appear by evidence other than
the act or declaration itself;
• 3. The act or declaration was made while the interest was subsisting; and
• 4. The act relates to the subject matter of the joint interest (Rule 130, Sec. 30)
 ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR
• The act or declaration of a conspirator may be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator provided the following requisites are present:
• 1. That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the act or declaration itself.
• 2. That the act or declaration was in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• 3. That the act or declaration was made during the existence of the conspiracy. (Rule 130, Sec. 31)

• In the example above, the utterance of the Accused that “Napatay namin ni Jose si Juan”
was made after the conspiracy. Hence, the out of court statement to the neighbor is not
binding on Jose. However, as stated, if the Accused testifies and points to Jose as
responsible for the death of Juan, his testimony would be admissible against Jose.
 ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR
• Reason
• Identity of interests for the commission of a crime.
• Scope
• This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or declaration but NOT to testimony at the trial where
the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. (People v. Janjalani, G.R.
No. 188314, 2011)
• In the absence of any other evidence to prove the existence of an alleged conspiracy, extra-
judicial statements and admissions of an individual cannot be taken as evidence against an
alleged co-conspirator. An extrajudicial statement made by a co-accused is, by itself,
insufficient to convict an accused of a crime charged because said statement is inadmissible
since they were made not during the existence of the conspiracy but after the said conspiracy
had already ceased and when the co-accused was already in the custody of the police. (People
vs. Cabrera, G.R. No. L-37398, 1974)
 ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
• Privies - Denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship or testamentary
legacy but also succession by virtue of acts inter vivos as by assignment, subrogation or
purchase – in fact any act whereby the successor is substituted in the place of the
predecessor in interest. The purchaser at an execution sale is a privy of the execution
debtor. (Alpuerto v. Pastor, G.R. No. L-12794, 1918)
 ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
• General Rule: In order for an admission of a former owner of property to be admissible against
his successor in title, it must have been made at the time when the title was still held by the
declarant. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)
• Exception: The declaration made subsequent to the transfer of the property shall be
admissible:
• 1. Where the declaration was made in the presence of the transferee and he acquiesces in the statements or asserts
no rights where he ought to speak. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)
• 2. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud which conspiracy exists between the vendor
and the vendee. (Rule 130, Sec. 31)
• The act of a predecessor is not binding on the successor if the acts/declarations made by the
predecessor acknowledging ownership or offering to purchase the property from a third party
weremade before the predecessor held title to the land. (City of Manila v. Del Rosario, G.R. No.
1284, 1905)
 ADMISSION BY SILENCE
• An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a
party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be
given in evidence against him or her. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)
• Reason
• Based on common experience and natural human behavior.
• Applicability to Criminal Cases
• The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of
the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. (People v. Paragsa,
G.R. No. L-44060, 1978)
 ADMISSION BY SILENCE
• But Before the Silence of a Party can be Taken as an Admission of What is Said, it Must Appear that:
• 1. He heard and understood the statement;
• 2. He was at liberty to interpose a denial;
• 3. The statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for
an answer;
• 4. The facts were within his knowledge; and
• 5. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue. (People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-
44060, 1978)

• Silence of an Accused Under Custodial Investigation

• The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a
crime, especially when such accused is not asked to comment or reply to such implications or accusations,
cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. (People v.
Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, 1979)
 CONFESSIONS
• A categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without
any exculpatory statement or explanation. (Regalado 2008 ed.)
• A confession is an acknowledgement in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of
his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, direct
or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other
facts, to prove his guilt. (People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, 1995)
 ADMISSION VS. CONFESSION
ADMISSION CONFESSION
A statement of fact which does not involve an Involves an acknowledgement of guilt or liability
acknowledgement of guilt or liability
May be express or tacit Must be express
May be made by third persons and, in certain cases, Can be made only by the party himself and, in
are admissible against a party (see Rule 130, Sec. 40, some instances, are admissible against his co-
on declarations against interest) accused (e.g., interlocking confessions)
 ADMISSION VS. CONFESSION
• In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. On the other hand, the term
admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which
do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit
the offense charged. The rights of an accused are not confined to the period prior to the
filing of an information but are available at that stage when a person is under investigation
for the commission of an offense.
 A CONFESSION MAY BE

• 1. Judicial Confession:
• One made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain a conviction
in capital offenses.
• This is admissible against the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are afforded the opportunity to cross-examine.

• 2. Extra-Judicial Confession:
• One made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti.
• May be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine
him. (Riano 2016 ed.)
• Note: The important thing is the affected party (i.e., co-accused) was given the opportunity to cross-examine. It is
irrelevant whether such party actually cross-examined the confessant.
• Where an extrajudicial admission or confession is repeated during trial and the other accused is accorded the
opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such admission or confession is transposed into a judicial admission or
confession. (People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 2004)
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS
• To be admissible, it is necessary that:
• 1. The confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt.
• 2. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense.
• 3. The confession must have been given voluntarily.
• 4. The confession must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the
importance or legal significance of his act.
• 5. There must have been no violation of Section 12, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS
• NOTE: Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation
shall be in writing, and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon
a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priests or minister of the gospel as chose
by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (Bar
2006; 2008)
• NOTE: A confession made before the confessant is placed under custodial investigation need not comply
with the above. (Riano, 2016 ed.)
• NOTE: The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating
him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment nor reply to such implications or
accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime.
Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear
incompatible with the right of an accused against self-incrimination. xxx While an accused is in custody, his
silence may not be taken in evidence against him as he has a right to remain silent. His silence when in
custody may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of silence would be illusory. (People
v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, 1979)
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS
• NOTE: Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel
although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are flawed under
the Constitution and as such cannot be admitted in Court. (People v. Compil, G.R. No.
95028, 1995)
• NOTE: Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence
and to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence.
(People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959, 1996)
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS
• NOTE: The rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against the person making
it, also recognizes various exceptions. One such exception worth noting is the rule that
where several extrajudicial statements had been (i) made by several persons charged with
an offense and (ii) there could have been no collusion with reference to said several
confessions, (iii) the facts that the statements are in all material respects identical, is
confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other
persons implicated therein.
• NOTE: They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated
therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the
crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and
circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged
and proved. (People v. Lising, G.R. Nos. 106210-11, 1998).
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS
• NOTE: After accused-appellant was arrested, he stated that five police officers at the police station beat him
up. They asked him to undress, forced him to lie down on a bench, sat on his stomach, placed a
handkerchief over his face, and poured water and beer over his face. When he could no longer bear the
pain, he admitted the crime charged, participated in a re-enactment, and signed an extrajudicial statement.
He was not informed of his right to remain silent nor did he have counsel of his choice to assist him in
confessing the crime. This was contrary to the constitution (People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959,
1996).
• NTOE: The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the “exclusionary
rule” because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all
persons, both aliens and citizens. The accused cannot be made to affix their signatures on evidence without
complying with the Bill of Rights. By affixing their signatures on the evidence, the accused are in effect made
to tacitly admit the crime charged for, in this case, mere possession of prohibited drugs is a crime. These
signatures amount to uncounseled extra-judicial confession prohibited by the Bill of Rights and are therefore
inadmissible as evidence. (People v.Wong Chuen Ming, G.R. Nos. 112801-11 1996)
 EXAMPLES
• Admissions made before the Mayor & Station Commander during a conference that
defendants were responsible for killing the victims is an admission. Also a judicial
admission by one accused is admissible against his co-accused, unlike in an extrajudicial
confession, where its admissible only against the one making it. (People v. Encipido, G.R.
No. 70091, 1986)
• A videotaped interview showing the accused unburdening his guilt, willingly, openly and
publicly in the presence of newsmen does not form part of custodial investigation if it was
not given to police officers but media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness
from the public. However, it is prudent that the trial courts are reminded that extreme
caution must be taken in further admitting confessions of such nature. (People v. Endino,
G.R. No. 133026, 2001)
 EXAMPLES
• A confession to a radio reporter is admissible where it was not shown that said reporter
was acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it
is apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing out of fear. (People v. Coyos, G.R. No.
138403, 2001)
• An uncounseled confession or admission given by the accused to a private individual is
not covered by Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution where there is no showing that said
private individual was acting under police authority. (People v. Mayo, G.R. No. 170470,
2006)
 EXAMPLES
• An uncounseled extrajudicial confession taken by a “bantay bayan,” who is charged with
the state related function of peace-keeping, is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Lauga,
G.R. No. 186228, 2010)
• Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to
counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible. (People v. Duero,
G.R. No. L-52016, 1981)
 SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
• General Rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
not do the same or similar thing at another time. (Rule 130, Sec. 35)
• Exceptions: Similar acts may be received as evidence to prove. SIPPS-HCU
• 1. A specific intent or knowledge
• 2. Identity
• 3. Plan
• 4. System
• 5. Scheme
• 6. Habit
• 7. Custom
• 8. usage; and
• 9. The like.
 SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
• NOTE: The prosecution may, however, introduce the robbery in January to prove the
robbery in June to establish a modus operandi: that in both robberies, the robbers used
explosives to gain entry into the bank, that the robbers threw tear gas while wearing gas
masks; and that the robbers struck at the close of bank hours.
• NOTE: Rule 130, Sec. 35 is the second branch of the res inter alios acta rule and applies
to both civil and criminal cases.
 SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
• The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit.
The examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be numerous enough to base
on inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently
similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion. (Boston Bank v. Manalo, G.R. No.
158149, 2006)
• The general rule is that evidence of other offenses committed by the defendant is inadmissible. However,
such evidence may be admitted where its purpose is to ascertain the knowledge and intent of the defendant
to fix his negligence. Evidence which tends to explain or establish conduct of the accused or defendant is
admissible unless it has no legitimate bearing on the issue (irrelevant) or where it is merely calculated to
prejudice the accused. (US v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858, 1918)
• While evidence of another crime is generally not admissible in another prosecution, it is admissible when it
is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged,
or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged or when it is
evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. (People v. Irang, G.R. No. L-45179, 1937)
 SIMILAR ACTS RULE IN SPECIAL LAWS
• 1. Rape Shield (SEC. 6, R.A. No. 8505):
• In prosecutions for rape, evidence of the complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof, or of his/her
reputation shall not be admitted:
• Exception: Unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is relevant and material to
the case.

• 2. Rule on Examination of Child Witnesses (Sec. 30)

• The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual child abuse:
• a. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
• b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim

• Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person,
other than the accused, was the source of the semen, injury, or other physical evidence. (This is admissible.)
 ADMISSIBILITY OF OFFERS OR
COMPROMISE
• 1. CIVIL CASES
• General Rule: An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is NOT
admissible in evidence against the offeror.
• Exception: When such offer is clearly not only to buy peace but amounts to an admission
of liability, the offered compromise being directed only to the amount paid (El Varadero de
Manila v. Insular Lumber, G.R. No. 21911, September 15, 1924).
 ADMISSIBILITY OF OFFERS OR
COMPROMISE
• The following are NOT admissible in evidence against the accused who made the
plea or offer:
• 1. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or
• 2. An unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense
• 3. Any statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does
not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn
 RULE ON OFFER OF PAYMENT OF EXPENSES
OCCASIONED BY INJURY (GOOD SAMARITAN
DOCTRINE)
• An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
• The offer of compromise which naturally, under the general rules of evidence, must be
excluded, except that as the amounts named in the offers to accept certain sums in
settlement appear to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of value, they are relevant. (El
Veradero v. Insular, G.R. No. 21911, 1924)
• The accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under the consciousness of
guilt but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason
which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth
and admission of guilt, or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would
ordinarily ensue therefrom. (People v. Godoy, G.R. No. 115908-09, 1995)
 RULE ON OFFER OF PAYMENT OF EXPENSES
OCCASIONED BY INJURY (GOOD SAMARITAN
DOCTRINE)
• The weight of authority sustains the rule which admits evidence of offers to compromise, in
criminal cases, but permits the accused to show that such offer was not made under a
consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some
other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in
truth an admission of his guilt and an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would
originally ensue therefrom. (US v. Maqui, G.R. No. L-8931, 1914)
• A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. In
criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt. (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 117217, 1996)
• An offer of compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer
can be received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after committing the
crime, the accused or his representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer is
proved. (People v. Yparraguirre, G.R. No. 117702, 1997)
HEARSAY RULE
 HEARSAY
• Definition: 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.

 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) 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 37)

• Any evidence is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of
the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.
(Regalado 2008 ed.)
 HEARSAY
• The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial
evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. The rule excluding hearsay as evidence
is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence
due to its not being given under oath or solemn affirmation and due to its not being subjected to
cross-examination by the opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability the worth of the out-
of-court statement depends. (Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, 11 April 2012)
• The term “hearsay” as used in the law on evidence, signifies evidence which is not founded
upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited and which consequently
does not depend wholly for its credibility and weight upon the confidence which the court may
have in him; its value, if any, is measured by the credit to be given to some third person not
sworn as a witness to that fact, and consequently, not subject to cross-examination. If one
therefore testifies to facts which he learned from a third person not sworn as a witness to those
facts, his testimony is inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
 ELEMENTS OF HEARSAY

• 1. There must be an out-of-court statement, whether oral or written, or a conduct intended

as an assertion, and
• 2. The statement made out of court is repeated and offered by the witness to prove the
truth of the matters asserted in the statement.
REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF HEARSAY
EVIDENCE
• Hearsay evidence is excluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived
of his right and opportunity to cross-examine the persons to whom the statements or
writings are attributed. (Regalado 2008 ed.)
• The reason for the exclusion of hearsay evidence is that the party against whom the
hearsay testimony is presented is deprived of the right or opportunity to cross-examine the
person to whom the statements are attributed. Moreover, the court is without opportunity
to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of the person who
made them. (People of the Philippines v. Victor P. Padit, G.R. No. 202978, 2016)
 FAILURE TO OBJECT TO HEARSAY
EVIDENCE
• Consequently, if a party does not object to the hearsay evidence, the same is admissible,
as a party can waive his right to cross-examine. However, it has also been held that
hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but, whether objected to or not, has
no probative value and, as opposed to direct primary evidence, the latter always prevails.
(Regalado 2008 ed. citing People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, 1987)
 HEARSAY STATEMENTS MAY BE THE
BASIS OF PROBABLE CAUSE
• Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial
basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable
cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary and
does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. (Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R.
No. 212140-41, 2015)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DYING DECLARATION
• Dying Declaration
• The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death,
may be received in any case wherein his or her death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence
of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. (Rule 130, Sec. 38)
• A statement made by a dying person referring to the material facts which concern the
cause and circumstances of his death and which is uttered under a fixed belief that death
is impending and is certain to follow immediately, or in a very short time, without an
opportunity of retraction and in the absence of all hopes of recovery.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DYING DECLARATION
• Elements:
• 1. Declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of declarant's death;
• 2. Made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death;
• 3. The statement wasmade declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived;
• 4. Dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death (People vs.
Bautista, G.R. No. 117685, 1999)

• Note: A dying declaration is NOT considered confidential communication between spouses

(U.S. v. Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109, 1918).
• Examples:
• ‘Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan,’ meaning ‘Help me, Pre, I was shot by the captain.’ –>
dying declaration (Marturillas v. People, G.R. No. 163217, 2006).
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DYING DECLARATION
• Intervening Time is Immaterial
• There must be a settled, hopeless expectation that death is at hand. It is sufficient that the
declarant believed himself to be in imminent danger of death at the time of such declaration.
• But death need not follow soon; statementsmade during a 7-day interval between stabbing and
the victim’s death were held to be a dying declaration (People v. Rarugal, G.R. No. 188603,
2013).
• It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that
renders the dying declaration admissible (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 11148, 1997)
• The fact that death did not ensue until three days after the declaration was made will not alter
its probative force since it is not indispensable that a declarant expires immediately thereafter.
It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death, in point of fact, that
renders the dying declaration admissible. (People v. Sabio, G.R. No. L-26193, 1981)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DYING DECLARATION
• Dying declarations are Admissible in Both Civil and Criminal Cases
• The former rule was that dying declarations were admissible only in criminal prosecutions
for homicide, murder, or parricide wherein the declarant is the victim. As amended, the
rule now provides for such admissibility in any case as long as requisites concur.
(Regalado 2008 ed.)
• Purposes for Admitting Dying Declaration:
• 1. To identify the accused or
• 2. To show the cause of death or
• 3. To show the circumstances under which the assault was made upon him.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DYING DECLARATION
• The declaration of the deceased is not admissible as an ante mortem declaration since the
deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. The declaration fails to show that the
deceased believed himself in extremis, "at the point of death when every hope of recovery is
extinct, which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of declarations as an exception to the
hearsay rule." It may be admitted, however, as part of the res gestae since the statement was
made immediately after the incident and the deceased had no sufficient time to concoct a
charge against the accused. (People v. Laquinon, G.R. No. L-45470, 1985)
• Dying declarations may be used to corroborate the testimony of a witness. (People v. Brioso,
G.R. No. L-28482, 1971)
• Thus, while a dying declaration may be admissible in evidence, it must identify with certainty
the assailant. Otherwise, it loses its significance. (People v. Ador, G.R. Nos. 140538-39, 2004)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF UNSOUND
MIND
• In an action:
• a. Against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or
• b. Against a person of unsound mind

• Upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind,
• Where a Party or Assignor of a party or A person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted
• TESTIFIES on a matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased or before the person became of unsound
mind,
• Any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, may be received in evidence if:
• The statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or person of unsound mind
• At a time when the matter had been recently perceived by him or her and
• While his or her recollection was clear.

• Such statement, however may be inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its lack of TRUSTWORTHINESS
(Rule 130, Sec. 39)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF UNSOUND
MIND
• Note: The previous version of this provision was the former Rule 130, Sec. 23 on disqualifications by reason of
death or insanity of adverse party (Dead man’s rule)
• The former Dead Man’s rule has now been superseded.
• The former Dead Man’s rule prohibited the survivor from testifying against the deceased or person of unsound
mind; the Dead Man’s Statute put the two parties on equal footing: Where death has sealed the lips of the dead, the
law seals the lips of the living.
• BUT now, a party, a party’s assignor or a person in whose behalf a case is being prosecuted in an action demanding
or claiming against the executor, administrator or other representative of the deceased or the person of unsound
mind, can now TESTIFY on amatter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased or before the person became
of unsound mind.
• To minimize however the danger of injustice to the decedent’s estate or person of unsound mind, the (otherwise
hearsay) statement of the deceased or person of unsound mind may be admitted, so long as the statement
was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or person of unsound mind, at the time when the matter
had been recently perceived by him or her and while his or her recollection was clear, and there are no
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
• The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of
the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable person in his or her position would
not have made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in
evidence against himself or herself or his or her successors in interest and against third
persons.
• A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate
the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate
trustworthiness of the statement (Rule 130, Sec. 40)
• Note: The second sentence of this rule is an addition to the old rule concerning
declarations against interest
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
• Consider this factual scenario: the alleged declarant Zoilo Fuentes Jr., a cousin of
accused-appellant Alejandro Fuentes Jr., supposedly verbally admitted to the latter, and
later to their common uncle Felicisimo Fuentes, that he (Zoilo) killed the victim because of
a grudge, after which he disappeared. One striking feature that militates against the
acceptance of such a statement is its patent untrustworthiness. Zoilo who is related
to accused-appellant had every motive to prevaricate. The same can be said of accused-
appellant and his uncle Felicisimo (Fuentes v. CA, G.R. No. 111692, 1996)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
• Requisites for declarations against interest:
• 1. Declarant must not be available to testify due to death, mental incapacity, or physical
incompetence, or his being outside the territorial jurisdiction of the country if exact whereabouts
are unknown.
• 2. The declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the declarant.
• 3. The circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed. (Fuentes vs.
CA, G.R. No. 111692, 1996)

• Scope
• The declaration against interest includes all kinds of interests such as pecuniary, proprietary, or
penal interests.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
• Kinds of Declarations against Interests:
• 1. Declaration against Pecuniary Interests - those which may bar in whole or in part the
declarant’s interests or which may give rise to a monetary claim against him.
• 2. Declaration against Proprietary Interests - those which are at variance with the
declarant’s property interests
• 3. Declaration against Penal Interests - those which put the declarant at the risk of
prosecution.
 DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST
AND ADMISSIONS DISTINGUISHED
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST ADMISSIONS
Exception to the hearsay rule; admissible Admissions of a party are NOT covered by the
Hearsay Rule (see Estrada v. Desierto)
Secondary evidence; admissible only if the Primary evidence; admissible even if the declarant
declarant is dead or unable to testify is available as a witness
The fact asserted in the declaration must have been A party’s admission need not have been made
at the time it was made so far contrary to the against his interest at the time it was made.
declarant’s own interest that a reasonable man in his
position would not have made that declaration
unless he believed it to be true
 DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST
AND ADMISSIONS DISTINGUISHED
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST ADMISSIONS
NOT necessary that the person declarant be a party The declarant or someone identified in interest is a
to the action; it is admissible in an action where his party to the action
declaration is relevant
May be admitted against himself or his successor- Used only against the party admitting and those
in-interest and against 3rd persons identified with him in legal interest
The declarant must be first accounted for as dead, An admission is made by the party himself, primary
absent from the jurisdiction, or otherwise evidence and competent though he is present in
unavailable as a witness court and ready to testify
Declarations against interests must have been made May be made at any time, before or during the trial
ante litem motam (before the controversy)
 DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST AND SELF-
SERVING DECLARATION DISTINGUISHED
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST SELF-SERVING DECLARATION
Admissible in evidence notwithstanding its hearsay Not admissible in evidence as proof of the facts
character asserted since its introduction in evidence would
open the door to fraud and perjury
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
• The testimony of the accused that he wasmarried to the deceased was an admission against
his penal interest. It was a confirmation of the maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and the
presumption “that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered
into a lawful contract of marriage.” He and the deceased had five children. He alluded in his
testimony to his father-in-law. That implies that the deceased was his lawful wife. The fact that
he bitterly resented her infidelity, her failure to visit him in prison and her neglect of their
children are other circumstances confirmatory of their marital status. (People v. Majuri, G.R.
No. L-38833, 1980)
• But more importantly, the far weightier reason why the admission against penal interest cannot
be accepted in the instant case is that the declarant is not “unable to testify.” There is no
showing that the declarant is either dead, mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent
which Sec. 38 [now Sec. 40] obviously contemplates. His mere absence from the jurisdiction
does not make him ipso facto unavailable under this rule. (Fuentes vs. CA, G.R. No. 111692,
1996)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
• A statement of fact in a verified petition and an accompanying silence about any contrary
fact may be appreciated in more than one context—a declaration against interest and a
judicial admission combined. A declaration against interest is the best evidence which
affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. A judicial admission binds the person
who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake,
no amount of rationalization can offset it. (Heirs of Miguel Franco v. CA, G.R. No. 123924,
2003)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
• Pedigree
• History of family descent which is transmitted from one generation to another by both oral
and written declarations and traditions.
• The word “pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (Rule 130, Sec.
41)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
• Reasons for Admissibility
• Declarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsay, are admitted on the principle that
they are natural expressions of persons who must know the truth. Pedigree testimony is
admitted because it is the best that the nature of the case admits and because greater evil
might arise from the rejection of such proof than from its admission. (People v. Alegado,
G.R. No. 93030-31, 1991)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
• Requisites:
• 1. The actor/declarant is dead or unable to testify;
• 2. The actor/declarant must be a relative by birth, adoption, marriage or, in the absence
thereof, the actor/declarant was so intimately associated with the family of another person
(whose pedigree is in question) as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the
latter’s pedigree;
• 3. The act or declaration must have been made before the controversy occurred; and
• 4. The relationship between the actor/declarant and the person whose pedigree is in
question must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
• Rule on Proving Evidence of Relationship for Establishing Pedigree
• General Rule: Where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative common to both
claimant and declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's estate:
• The relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the declaration
itself. There must be some independent proof of this fact.
• Exception: [Where the party seeks] to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely
to establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other family member:
• The declaration itself will suffice. (Tison v. CA, G.R. No 121027, 1997)
• In a marriage nullity case, the lack of personal interview of the respondent does not render
hearsay the psychological report (Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes, G.R. No. 185286, 2010).
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
• The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying
thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity, affinity or adoption.
Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits
and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (Rule, 130 Sec. 42)
• By family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree is meant such declarations and
statements as have come down from generation to generation from deceased relatives in
such a way that even though it cannot be said or determined which of the deceased
relatives originally made them, yet it appears that such declarations and statements
weremade as family history, ante litem motam, by a deceased person connected by blood,
marriage or adoption with the person whose pedigree is to be established.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
• Requisites:
• 1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of a family;
• 2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to
the controversy; and
• 3. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person
concerned must be amember of the family of said person either by consanguinity, affinity
or adoption.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
• Scope of enumeration
• The scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this provision is limited to
objects which are commonly known as family possessions, or those articles which represent, in
effect, a family’s joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These are objects
openly exhibited and well known to the family; or those which, if preserved in a family, may be
regarded as giving a family tradition. Other examples are: inscriptions on tombstones,
monuments or coffin plates (Jison v. CA, G.R. No. 124853, 1998)
• The law does not require that the entries in the said booklet be made at the same time as the
occurrence of those events; hence, the written memorandum in the same is not subject to the
defect attributed to it. The witness Joaquin Jose de Inchausti declared affirmatively that the
memorandum under consideration has been written in the handwriting of his brother Ramon
Martinez de Viademonte, whose handwriting he was familiar with, and the testimony of this
witness contains some reference to a member of the family, now dead, and concerning the
family genealogy of the same. (Ferrer v. de Inchausti, G.R. No. L-12993, 1918)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
• A person’s testimony as to his age is admissible although hearsay and though a person
can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth as all the knowledge a person has
of his age is acquired from what he is told by his parents, he may testify as to his age as
he had learned it from his parents and relatives. His testimony in such case is an assertion
of family tradition. (People v. Alegado, G.R. No. 93030-31, 1991)
 DISTINGUISH SECTION 41 V. SECTION 42

SECTION 41 SECTION 42
Act or declaration about pedigree Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
Actor/Declarant is deceased or unable to testify The witness testifies as to the reputation or
tradition regarding pedigree within the family (the
actors/declarants may be dead or alive).
Witness need not be a member of the family Witness is a member of the family
Relation of the actor/declarant and the person The witness himself is the one to whom the fact
subject of the inquiry must be established by relates; it is not necessary for him to establish by
independent evidence independent evidence his relationship to his family
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMON REPUTATION
• Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries of or customs
affecting lands in the community and reputation as to the events of general history
important to the community, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of
common reputation (Rule 130, Sec. 43)
• Testimony does not constitute common reputation unless such is equivalent to universal
reputation. (City of Manila v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 1284, 1905)
• Common reputation is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved
is known or exists. It means the general or substantially undivided reputation, as
distinguished from a partial or qualified one, although it need not be unanimous.
(Regalado, 2008 ed.)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMON REPUTATION
• What may be Established by Common Reputation:
• 1. Boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community
• 2. Reputation as to events of general history important to the community
• 3. Reputation respecting marriage
• 4. Reputation respecting moral character
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMON REPUTATION
• Requisites for Admissibility of Common Reputation as to events of general history
important to the community:
• 1. The facts must be of public or general interest;
• 2. The reputation must have been formed among a class of persons who were in a
position to have some sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the
formation of the opinion; and
• 3. The reputation must have been existing previous to the controversy.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMON REPUTATION
• Requisites for Admissibility of Common Reputation Respecting Marriage:
• 1. The common reputation must have been formed previous to the controversy; and
• 2. The reputation must have been formed among a class of persons who were in a
position to have some sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the
formation of the opinion.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMON REPUTATION
• Requisites for Admissibility of Common Reputation Respecting Moral Character:
• 1. That it is the reputation in the place where the person in question is best known; and
• 2. That it was formed previous to the controversy. (People v. Alegado, G.R. No. 93030-31,
1991)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMON REPUTATION
• Reputation and Character Distinguished
• Character
• Refers to the inherent qualities of a person. It means that which a person really is.
• Reputation
• Applies to the opinion which others may have formed and expressed of his character. It
means that which a person is reputed to be.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMON REPUTATION
• Under this section, the character of a person is permitted to be established by his common
reputation. (Regalado, 2008 ed.)
• The character of a certain place as an “opium joint” can be established by proof of facts
and circumstances including evidence of its common reputation in the community (U.S. v.
Choa Chiok, G.R. No. 12423, 1917)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to
the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 44)
• Res Gestae is from the Latin phrase meaning “things done”.
• Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay rule, refers to those exclamations and statements
made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were
made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and
there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.
(DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No.
147039 January 27, 2006)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• There are two types of res gestae utterances:
• 1. Spontaneous Statements
• Statementsmade by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately
prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. The spontaneous or
excited utterance is part of the “things done”, the startling occurrence.
• Example: A heard a gunshot and saw B holding a gun pointed at C who was slumped on
the ground. C shouted, “Please don't kill me.” A’s testimony regarding the statement made
by C may be deemed part of the res gestae.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• 2. Verbal Acts
• Utterances which accompany some equivocal act or conduct to which the utterances give
a legal effect.
• A verbal act presupposes conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one which, in itself,
does not signify anything when taken separately. It only acquires a meaning, specifically
what the rules call a legal significance, only because of the statements that accompany
the act. (Riano, 2019 ed.)
• Example: A gives B, a public officer, P1 Million. As he gives the money to B, A says that
the P1 Million is the loan he is extending to B. In a case for corruption of public officer, A’s
statement can be given as part of the res gestae.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• Rationale
• Statements made instinctively at the time of some startling event or incident without the
opportunity for formulation of statements favorable to one’s own cause cast important light
upon the matter in issue and are presumed truthful. This is the first type of res gestae
statement. The event is “speaking through” the witness and not the witness talking about
the event.
 SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS V.
VERBAL ACTS
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS VERBAL ACTS
Res gestae is the startling occurrence Res gestae is the equivocal act
Statement may be made prior, or immediately after, Statement must be contemporaneous with or must
the startling occurrence accompany the equivocal act
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• Requisites for Admissibility of Spontaneous Statements:
• 1. There must be a startling occurrence;
• 2. The statement must be made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood; and
• 3. The statement must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances. (People v. Estibal, G.R. No. 208749, 2014)
• It is important to stress that the statement must not only be spontaneous. It must also be
made at a time when there was no opportunity for the person to concoct or develop his
own story. (People v. Lungayan, G.R. No. L-64556, 1988)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• Not every statement made under the startling event is admissible even if it be
spontaneous. The only spontaneous statement made under the stress of excitement of
the startling event that qualifies for admissibility is one that relates to the circumstances of
the event. The statement must describe the event perceived. (Riano, 2019 ed.)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• Requisites for Admissibility of Verbal Acts
• 1. Act or occurrence characterized must be equivocal;
• 2. Verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal act;
• 3. Equivocal act must be relevant to the issue; and
• 4. Verbal acts must be contemporaneous with equivocal act (Talidano v. Falcom Maritime
& Allied Services, G.R. No. 172031, 2008)
 RES GESTAE AND DYING
DECLARATION DISTINGUISHED
RES GESTAE DYING DECLARATION
It is the event itself which is speaking through the A sense of impending death takes the place of an
witness oath and the law regards the declarant as testifying
A statement as part of the res gestae may be that of Made only by the victim
the killer himself during or after the killing or that
of a third person
The rule of res gestae has its justification in the The trustworthiness of a dying declaration is based
spontaneity of the statement upon its being given under the awareness of
impending death
It may precede, accompany or follow the events Confined to matters surrounding or occurring after
occurring as a part of the principal act the homicidal act
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• Although a declaration does not appear to have been made by the declarant under the
expectation of a sure and impending death, and, for that reason, is not admissible as a dying
declaration yet if such declaration was made at the time of, or immediately after, the
commission of the crime, or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still
continued in the declarant’s mind, it is admissible as a part of the res gestae. The victim’s
statement was given sometime after the stabbing while he was undergoing treatment at a
medical clinic. He had no time to concoct a falsehood or to fabricate a malicious charge against
Putian. Nomotive has been shown as to why he would frame up the accused. (People v.
Putian, G.R. No. L-33049, 1976)
• The interval of time between the startling occurrence and the statement depends upon the
circumstances; but such statement must have been made while the declarant was under the
immediate influence of the startling occurrence, hence it is generally required to have been
made immediately prior or subsequent to the event. (Regalado, 2008 ed.)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
• If the statement was made under the influence of a startling event and the declarant did not
have the opportunity to concoct or contrive a story, even if made 9 hours after the killing, the
statement is admissible as part of res gestae. (Regalado citing People v. Berame, G.R. L-
27606, 1976)
• The statements taken cannot be considered as part of res gestae when the bystanders already
had enough time and opportunity to mill around, talk to one another and exchange information,
not to mention theories and speculations, as is the usual experience in disquieting situations
where hysteria is likely to take place. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether the utterances
were the products of truth. That the utterances may be mere idle talk is not remote. At best, the
testimonies of the investigators that the statements were made may be considered as
independently relevant statements gathered in the course of their investigation and are
admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered. (DBP
Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No. 147039
2006)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED
BUSINESS ACTIVITY
• A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions or
diagnoses, made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means at or near
the time of or from transmission or supply of information -
• a) By a person with knowledge thereof and
• b) Kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity and
• c) Such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation by electronic,
optical or similar means
• d) All of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses,

• - is excepted from the rule of hearsay evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 45)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED
BUSINESS ACTIVITY
• There are two persons covered by this exception, the entrant and the witness.
• The entrant himself or herself is not required to be dead or unable to testify (which was the
requirement under the old version of the rule).
• The testimony of the custodian or the other qualified witnesses should be able to prove
the other requisites under this exception.
• The counterpart provision in the Rules on Electronic Evidence is Rule 8.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
• Entries in official records made in the performance of his or her 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. (Rule 130 Sec. 46)
• Requisites:
• 1. That the entry was made by:
• a. A public officer, or
• b. Another person, specially enjoined by law to do so;
• 2. That it was made by the public officer in the performance of his or her duties, or by such
other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
• 3. That the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by him or
her, which must have been acquired by him or her personally or through official information.
(Africa v. Caltex, G.R. No. L-12986, 1966)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
• Proof of Unavailability of Entrant Unnecessary
• It is not necessary to show that the person making the entry is unavailable for he is
excused from appearing in court in order that public business be not interrupted.
• The written entries in the clinical case record, showing the date of her admission in the
hospital on April 22, 1973, her complaint of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of "Healing
lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen" are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated, the said entries having been made in official records by a public officer of
the Philippines in the performance of his duty especially enjoined by law, which is that of a
physician in a government hospital. (People v. Leones, G.R. No. L-48727, 1982)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
• It remains only to note that entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of
performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. (People v.
Cabuang, G.R. No. 103292, 1993)
• In a homicide case, one of the issues was determining which of the two medical certificates
issued by two different doctors, one of whom was a government physician, should be given
credence. The Court ruled that the medical certificate issued by the government doctor should
be given more weight. By actual practice, only government physicians, by virtue of their oaths
as civil service officials, are competent to examine persons and issue medical certificates which
will be used by the government. As such, the medical certificate carries the presumption of
regularity in the performance of his functions and duties. Moreover, under Section 44 [now
Section 46], Rule 130, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. An unverified medical certificate not issued by
a government physician is unreliable. (Tarapen v. People, G.R. No. 173824, 2008)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
• Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation
contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published
for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by
them therein. (Rule 130, Sec. 47)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
• Requisites for Admissibility:
• 1. It is a statement of a matter of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
• 2. Such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation;
• 3. That compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation, and
• 4. That compilation is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation (Rule 130, Sec.
47)
• Examples:
• 1. Trade journals
• 2. Table of mortality compiled by life insurance companies
• 3. Abstracts of title compiled by reputable title examining institutions or individuals
• 4. Business directories
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
LEARNED TREATISES
• A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in
the subject. (Rule 130, Sec. 48)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
LEARNED TREATISES
• Requisites:
• 1. There is a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art
• 2. It is offered to prove the truth of a matter stated therein
• 3. The court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement
in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. (Rule
130, Sec. 48)

• Learned Treatises are Admissible Only if:

• 1. The court takes judicial notice that the writer is recognized in his profession as expert in the subject; or
• 2. A witness who is an expert on the subject testifies that the writer of the statement is recognized in his
profession as expert in the subject.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
PROCEEDING
• The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or who
cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to
testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had
the opportunity to cross-examine him or her (Rule 130, Sec. 49)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
PROCEEDING
• Requisites:
• 1. The witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is:
• a. Deceased
• b. Unable to testify
• c. Out of the Philippines
• d. Cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines, or
• e. Unavailable;
• 2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between
the same parties or those representing the same interests (identity of parties);
• 3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of
action (identity of issues); and
• 4. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case. (Riano, 2019 ed.)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
PROCEEDING
• While a former testimony or deposition appears under the Exceptions to the Hearsay
Rule, the classification of former testimony or deposition as an admissible hearsay is not
universally conceded. A fundamental characteristic of hearsay evidence is the adverse
party’s lack of opportunity to cross-examine the out-of-court declarant. However, Section
49, Rule 130 explicitly requires, inter alia, for the admissibility of a former testimony or
deposition that the adverse party must have had an opportunity to cross-examine the
witness or the deponent in the prior proceeding. This rule contemplates a different kind of
cross-examination, whether actual or a mere opportunity, whose adequacy depends on
the requisite identity of issues in the former case or proceeding and in the present case
where the former testimony or deposition is sought to be introduced. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, 2011).
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
RESIDUAL EXCEPTION
• A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that:
• a) The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
• b) The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent
can procure through reasonable efforts; and
• c) The general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will be best served by admission of the statement
into evidence.

• However, a statementmay not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in
the case of a trial of amain case, to provide the adverse party with fair opportunity to prepare to
meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the
name and address of the declarant. (Rule 130, Sec. 50)
 HEARSAY RULE: INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS
• Where the statements or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand
are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein but only to prove that
those statements were actually made, or those writings were executed, such evidence is
not covered by the hearsay evidence rule. The witness who testifies thereto is competent
because he heard the same or saw the execution of the document, as these are matters
of fact derived from his own perception and the purpose is only to prove either that the
statement was made or the tenor thereof. (Regalado citing People v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-
20986, 1965; Cornejo, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58831, 1987; Sebastian, Sr. v.
Garchitorena. et al., G.R. No. 114026, 2000)
 HEARSAY RULE: INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS
• Where, regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, the fact that it has been made is
relevant, the hearsay rule does not apply. A witness may testify to the statements made by a
person if, for instance, the fact that such statements were made by the latter would indicate the
latter’s mental state or physical condition. The ban on hearsay evidence does not cover
independently relevant statements, which consist of statements that are independently relevant
of the truth asserted therein. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2001)
• The doctrine on independently relevant statements states that conversations communicated to
a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity,
they were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is not secondary but
primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the
existence of such fact. (Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030, 2002)
 HEARSAY RULE: INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS
• Two Classes of Independently Relevant Statements
• 1. Those statements which are the very facts in issue.
• 2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
• The Second Class of Independently Relevant Statements Includes the Following:
• 1. Statement of a person showing his state of mind;
• 2. Statement of a person showing his physical condition;
• 3. Statements of a person from which inference may be made as to the state of mind of another person;
• 4. Statements which may identify the date, place, and person in question; and
• 5. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2001)