C3h- 1 Hearsay Evidence Rule

Anna Lerima Patula v. People

GR No. 164457
April 11, 2012

BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:
Anna Lerima Patula (Patula) was a saleswoman of Footluckers Chain of Stores, Inc.
(Footluckers). Patula was initially a sales lady back in 1996, but was then promoted to a sales
representative. She was authorized to take orders whole sale coming form different towns, and
collect payments from the same, and was allowed to issue and sign receipts for the payments, which
she would them remit to Footluckers.

She was accused of misappropriating, misapply, and covert the proceeds of sale o her own
benefit worth P131.286,97 and a case was filed against here before the RTC.

The prosecution presented Lamberto Go (Go) General manager of Footluckers in

Dumaguete City, and testified that he saw that Patula’s initial sales were high but then dropped. He
asked her for the reason, and Patula responded that sales were slow. Not believing Patula, he
initially asked the clerk to verify the accounts of the company but found that there were erasures
on some of the collection slips. He then asked the company auditor (Karen Guivencan) to investigate
the same, and reported that the outstanding balances of their customers were already paid. Finally
he contended, on a night later on Patula and her parents went to his house and denied any
misappropriation, and that they would settle the accounts on a monthly basis praying that he not
push trough the case against Patula.

The second witness was Guivencan, and she corroborated Go’s testimony, and alleged that
she did indeed investigate by going to the customers in different cities and found that there were
discrepancies between the original receipts of the customers and the duplicates that Patula
submitted to the office. On the receipts of the customers, they had already paid, while on the
duplicate receipts, there were still balances.

Prosecution then presented the ledgers of the various customers allegedly with the
discrepancies, the receipts issued by Patula, and confirmation sheets by Guivencan . Patula’s
counsel objected to such evidences as they were hearsay, as the persons who made the entries
were not themselves presented in the court.

After the Prosecution rested its case, the Defense decided not to file a demurrer to evidence
although it had manifested the intention to do so, and instead rested it’s case. The Prosecution and
Defense submitted their respective memoranda, and submitted the case for decision.

Since the prosecution’s defense was unrefuted and uncontroverted, the RTC adjudged
Patula to be guilty of Estafa. Counsel of Patula insisted that such judgment grossly violated her
constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
her because, the charge of estate was different from the presented evidence and upon her
conviction was bsed on falsification. An offense not alleged or inlcued in the information under
which she was arranged was blatantly ignored, and the rules on evidence on documentary evidence
were all private documents and were not duly proved. Hence filed a petition for certiorari against
the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution may be admitted as
evidence

HELD:
No, the evidence presented by the prosecution was mere hearsay. Sec. 36, Rule 130 states
that a witness can only testify to those facts she knows of her personal knowledge; that ism which
are derived from her own perception except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court.

To address the problem of controlling inadmissible hearsay as evidence to establish the

truth in a dispute while also safeguardinga partys right to cross-examine her adversarys
witness,the Rules of Court offers two solutions.

The first solution is to require that allthe witnesses in a judicial trial or hearing be
examined only in courtunder oath or affirmation. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
formalizes this solution,viz:

Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. - The examination of witnesses

presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)

The second solution is to require that all witnesses be subject to the cross-examination by the
adverse party. Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court ensures this solution thusly:

Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon the termination of the
direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any
matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the
reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)

Although the second solution traces its existence to a Constitutional precept relevant to
criminal cases, i.e., Section 14, (2), Article III, of the 1987 Constitution,which guarantees that: In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall xxx enjoy the right xxx to meet the witnesses face to face
xxx, the rule requiring the cross-examination by the adverse party equally applies to non-criminal
proceedings.

In the case at, Go essentially described for the trial court the various duties of petitioner as
Footluckers sales representative. On her part, Guivencan conceded having no personal knowledge
of the amounts actually received by petitioner from the customersor remitted by petitioner to
Footluckers. This means that persons other than Guivencan prepared Exhibits B to YY and their
derivatives, inclusive,and that Guivencan based her testimony on the entries found in the receipts
supposedly issued by petitioner and in the ledgers held by Footluckers corresponding to each
customer, as well as on the unsworn statements of some of the customers. Accordingly, her being
the only witness who testified on the entries effectively deprived the RTC of the reasonable
opportunity to validate and test the veracity and reliability of the entries as evidence of petitioners
misappropriation or conversion through cross-examination by petitioner.

Being unable to authenticate or cross examine the customers, essentially bars such
evidence to be admitted as they are hearsay.