Rule on Hearsay Evidence

Someone Told Me So
In ordinary days, we are often told of stories by someone who has also
been told by another someone whose stories were also derived from another
someone.
Apparently, in this kind of setting, confusion takes place. The details of
information which may be vital to understand the whole scenario may
change. Further, in the litany of cases, the Supreme Court ruled that "The
real basis for the exclusion appears to lie in the fact that hearsay testimony is
not subject to the tests which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment
of the truth of the testimony." Such tests shall be discussed as we go on later.
Hearsay, as defined in Woodroffes Law on Evidence, is an evidence not
of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others.
Unlike the common practice in giving credits to such hearsay stories, in
our courts of justice, the general rule is that hearsay testimony shall be
inadmissible in evidence as to any purpose in any proceedings in any court.
Thus, Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides, "A witness can
testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is
derived from his own perception, xxx" In other words, hearsay testimony has
not given not only of credit but severely, it is stricken out of the record.
In hearsay testimony, the truth cannot be ascertained through the crossexamination. The latter is the test to wich the Supreme Court is referring
from the aforementioned cases. In People vs Toledo, "the purpose of an
evidence is to get the truth. The reason for the hearsay rule is that the
extrajudicial and unsworn statement of another is not the best method of
serving this purpose. In other words, the great possibility of the fabrication
of falsehoods, and the inability to prove their untruth, requires the doors be
closed to such evidence."
However, there are exceptions to the general rule and they are governed
by Section 37 to Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. One of these
exceptions is the dying declaration. According to Wharton, dying
declarations are the statement made by a person after the mortal wound has
been inflicted, under a belief that death is certain, stating the facts
concerning the cause of, and the circumstances surrounding the homicide.

The dying declaration is considered as an exception to the hearsay which

since they are made in extremis when the declarant is at the point of death,
as ruled by the Supreme Court in People vs Rodolfo. Hence, the declaration
is allowed to avoid failure of justice. In the language of Lord Byron Eyre,
"the declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death
and every hope of this world is gone, when every motive for falsehood is
silenced and the mind induced by the most powerful consideration to speak
the truth. A situation so solemn and awful is considered by law as creating an
obligation equal to that which is imposed by an administrative court. The
idea, more succinctly expressed, is that truth sits on the lips of dying men."
Another exception is the declaration against interest. The reason for its
admissibility as evidence is as well necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity
because such declaration is the only proof available; and trustworthiness,
because of the first presumption that men will neither falsify nor commit to
mistakes when such falsehood or mistake would be prejudicial to their own
pecuniary interest, and because of the fact that any fraudulent motive for
making the statement may be shown, as stated by the Court in Middleton vs
Melton.
The other exceptions are the acts or declarations about pedigree; the
family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree; common reputation; res
gestae; entries in the course of business; entries in official records;
commercial lists and the like; learned treaties; and the testimony or
deposition at a former proceedings. The denial of such may equate to the
denial of justice.
In the end, the utmost purpose of the law should prevail. Justice should
be served, otherwise people in this weary world will uprise and handle the
justice upon their hands until justice could be searched in nowhere.