Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Cases in the Philippines

Hearsay evidence Philippines rules are important in criminal cases because courts generally cannot rely on statements made outside court to prove the truth of what those statements assert. The 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence provide the general hearsay rule and its recognized exceptions.

What Is Hearsay Evidence?

Hearsay evidence in the Philippines refers to an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted in that statement.

Under Section 37, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence, hearsay may consist of an oral or written statement, or nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion. As a general rule, hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls under an established exception.

The basic concern is that the person who made the statement—the declarant—is not testifying in court and is therefore generally unavailable for cross-examination. The opposing party cannot adequately test the declarant’s perception, memory, truthfulness, and accuracy.

Why Is Hearsay Generally Inadmissible in Criminal Cases?

The hearsay rule in criminal cases is closely connected with the accused’s constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.

In People of the Philippines v. Graham,G.R. No. 253287, July 06, 2022 the Supreme Court recognized the importance of the right of confrontation in criminal proceedings. Evidence that is purely hearsay cannot ordinarily be used as the basis for conviction because the accused has no meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the person who actually made the statement.

Similarly, in Lagaoy v. People, G.R. No. 217721. September 15, 2021, the Court emphasized that a witness generally may testify only on matters based on personal knowledge. A witness cannot simply repeat what another person allegedly said to establish the truth of that person’s statement.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, hearsay evidence that does not fall within a recognized exception cannot supply the competent evidence necessary to support a criminal conviction.

When Is a Statement Not Hearsay?

Not every out-of-court statement is hearsay.

Under Section 37, Rule 130, when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, certain prior statements are specifically treated as not hearsay, including:

A prior inconsistent statement made under oath in a trial, hearing, proceeding, or deposition;
A prior consistent statement offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; and
A prior identification of a person made after the declarant perceived that person.

Therefore, determining whether a statement is hearsay requires examining why the statement is being offered and whether the declarant is available for cross-examination.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

The Rules on Evidence recognize circumstances in which hearsay may nevertheless be admitted.

1. Dying Declaration

A dying declaration may be admitted when a person makes a statement while conscious of impending death and the statement concerns the cause and circumstances of that person’s death.

The fact that the declarant eventually died is not, by itself, sufficient. The declarant must have believed that death was imminent and inevitable.

In United States v. Virrey, G.R. No. L-12901 February 12, 1918 the Supreme Court recognized the requirements surrounding dying declarations. The exception is narrowly applied because it permits an out-of-court statement despite the absence of ordinary cross-examination.

2. Res Gestae

A statement may qualify as res gestae when it is made under the influence of a startling occurrence before the declarant has had sufficient time to fabricate or deliberately construct a story.

The statement must relate to the startling event or its immediate circumstances.

In People v. Estibal, G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014, the Supreme Court discussed the spontaneity required for statements admitted under the res gestae exception. Statements made after sufficient time for reflection, deliberation, or prompting may not possess the required spontaneity.

3. Statements of Children in Child Abuse Cases

A special hearsay exception applies to certain statements of children in child abuse cases.

Under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, a child’s statement describing an act or attempted act of child abuse may be admitted despite being hearsay, subject to specific requirements and safeguards.

The adverse party must be given notice of the intention to offer the statement and its particulars. When the child is available, the court may require the child to testify and be subjected to cross-examination.

The court also considers circumstances bearing on the statement’s reliability, including the child’s possible motive to lie, spontaneity, timing, relationship with the witness, possibility of faulty recollection, and circumstances concerning the accused’s alleged involvement.

When the child is unavailable, corroboration by other admissible evidence is required under the Rule.

Are Affidavits Automatically Admissible?

No. An affidavit is not automatically admissible merely because it is notarized.

When an affidavit is offered to prove the truth of its contents and the affiant does not testify in court or become available for cross-examination, the affidavit may constitute hearsay.

In People v. Tampoy G.R. Nos. 131799-801 February 23, 2004, the Supreme Court explained the evidentiary limitations of affidavits when the affiant is not presented for cross-examination. An affidavit must also be properly offered and admitted before it may be considered by the court.

Likewise, in Agustin v. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. L-75511-14 March 16, 1987, the Court addressed the inadmissibility of an ex parte affidavit against an accused when the affiant was not presented in court, absent a recognized exception.

Can an Accused Be Convicted Solely on Hearsay Evidence?

Generally, hearsay evidence has no probative value unless it falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

In People v. Mamalias (2000), the Supreme Court emphasized the lack of probative value of hearsay evidence when it does not qualify under an exception.

In Lagaoy v. People (G.R. No. 217721. September 15, 2021, the Court likewise stressed the importance of competent evidence based on personal knowledge. Where hearsay constitutes the principal or only evidence identifying the accused or establishing an essential element of the offense, its exclusion may leave the prosecution without sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The result, however, depends on the entire evidentiary record. A criminal case does not necessarily fail simply because one piece of evidence is hearsay; the court must determine whether other admissible evidence independently establishes the accused’s guilt.

Key Takeaway on Hearsay Evidence Philippines

The central rule on hearsay evidence Philippines cases is straightforward: an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts is generally inadmissible unless it is covered by a recognized exception or is otherwise classified as non-hearsay under the Rules on Evidence.

In criminal cases, the rule protects the accused’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and reinforces the requirement that guilt be proven through competent and admissible evidence.

If a criminal case relies heavily on an affidavit, statement, or testimony repeating what another person allegedly said, the critical questions are:

Is the statement being offered to prove the truth of its contents?
Did the declarant personally perceive the facts?
Is the declarant available for cross-examination?
Does the statement fall within a recognized hearsay exception?
Is there other admissible evidence supporting the prosecution’s case?

These questions can determine whether particular evidence may properly be considered by the court.

Related Readings:

This article was prepared by Romualdez Law Offices, a Philippine law firm providing legal services in criminal law, family law, corporate law, civil, property, and dispute resolution.

Schedule a Consultation

Location

Soho 207 Mckinley Park Residences, 3rd ave. cor. 31st St., BGC, Taguig, Philippines, 1635

Email: executive@romualdezlaw.com

Contact Number: +63 952 489 1738