[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ABOVE THE LAW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY AYIN DREAM D. APLASCA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=”]
THE SUPREME Court majority decision upheld Sen. Leila de Lima’s arrest founded on the criminal complaint brought against her by the Department of Justice.
The ponente of the said decision said the denial of granting similar petition of former senator Bong Revilla to Senator de Lima was “intended to guarantee the right of every person from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himself or herself in the course of a formal trial.”
One of the reasons why the petition was denied was because it presented hearsay evidence. What is hearsay evidence?
The evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. The hearsay evidence rule is provided under section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which states that: “Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge: hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in this rule.”
As a general rule, hearsay evidence is not admissible in court because decisions cannot be based on this kind of evidence. As a matter of course, lawyers should object when presented with this kind of evidence. Failure to object does not make hearsay evidence admitted because it should be given neither weight nor value. It has no probative value and cannot be given credence.
By way of exception to hearsay evidence, Sec. 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for the exclusion of the res gestae. It states that: “Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto 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.”
This means that the statements made by the participants or the victims of a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false testimony.
In the recent case, the Court rules that the essential elements must be present in prosecuting criminal offense. Unfortunately, it ruled that the elements are based on hearsay. Thus, this prompted the DOJ to conduct a preliminary investigation against an accused and that the testimonies provided by de Lima’s co-conspirators should not be disregarded.
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
