Home
Good day!
I am a law student of one of the universities in Cebu. I am taking the subject Evidence this semester and we are now in the hearsay topic. I asked a question to my professor about hearsay vis-a-vis part of res gestae, which is one of the exceptions of the former, but I guess he was not able to understand my question or I was not able to formulate well my question. Anyway, I am really curious about this.
My question is about the exception in Sec. 42, Rule 130. The provision is as follows:
"Sec. 42 . Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of 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."
As far as I understand, there are two cases in Sec. 42, i.e., (1) spontaneous statements and (2) verbal acts. My concern is in the first case.
I will ask my question through an example:
A bank was robbed. X saw the robbery and ran while shouting "The bank has been robbed!". Y who was just walking nearby heard X. X can no longer be found. The robbers were placed on trial and Y was presented as witness and offered as evidence what he heard from X.
In this example, no doubt the testimony of Y will be admissible. Although this is hearsay (because he just heard it from another person), the rules allow this to be admissible as part of res gestae. There is a startling occurrence and there was a statement made by X ("The bank was robbed!") with respect to such occurrence. BUT, WHAT IF X CAN TESTIFY? X, THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY SAW TH EVENT, SHOUTED AND RAN, CAN BE PRESENT ON THE TRIAL?
My question is that will the res gestae only apply if the one testifying in court is the one who heard the statement (Y in this case) because X cannot testify for one reason or another? Or will it also apply if the person who made the statement (X in this case) is the one testifying in court (which my professor insists to be included)?
I made this (i hope a) logical question because what I learned is that testimony must be based on personal knowledge, otherwise, it would be hearsay. Hearsay, generally, is inadmissible because the person who uttered a statement cannot be cross-examined because of some reasons. There is no opportunity for cross-examination. Hence if a person who heard the statement made will be the one who will testify, then it will be a hearsay generally. So what I understood from hearsay is that there must be an out-of-court statement made by a person and such statement was repeated by ANOTHER person in court. But the rules admit of exceptions like dying declarations, part of res gestae, etc.
Like in dying declarations, X who knows of his impending death, told Y that "Juan shot me". Here, X made a statement and Y heard this and will testify in court about the statement.
Relating to my question and to what my professor insists, HOW CAN SPONTANEOUS STAEMENTS MADE BY A PERSON BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE INADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY IF HE HIMSELF CAN TESTIFY IN COURT? HOW CAN IT BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY IF THERE IS NO HEARSAY IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT WAS REPEATED IN COURT BY THE SAME PERSON WHO MADE SUCH STATEMENT? THERE IS NO "PERSON WHO HEARD A STATEMENT FROM ANOTHER".
I hope this is a valid question. The usual examples in the books or in jurisprudence are the person who heard the statement from another is the one testifying in court, which I do not contest. I am seeking your advice regarding this matter. Thank you.
I am a law student of one of the universities in Cebu. I am taking the subject Evidence this semester and we are now in the hearsay topic. I asked a question to my professor about hearsay vis-a-vis part of res gestae, which is one of the exceptions of the former, but I guess he was not able to understand my question or I was not able to formulate well my question. Anyway, I am really curious about this.
My question is about the exception in Sec. 42, Rule 130. The provision is as follows:
"Sec. 42 . Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of 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."
As far as I understand, there are two cases in Sec. 42, i.e., (1) spontaneous statements and (2) verbal acts. My concern is in the first case.
I will ask my question through an example:
A bank was robbed. X saw the robbery and ran while shouting "The bank has been robbed!". Y who was just walking nearby heard X. X can no longer be found. The robbers were placed on trial and Y was presented as witness and offered as evidence what he heard from X.
In this example, no doubt the testimony of Y will be admissible. Although this is hearsay (because he just heard it from another person), the rules allow this to be admissible as part of res gestae. There is a startling occurrence and there was a statement made by X ("The bank was robbed!") with respect to such occurrence. BUT, WHAT IF X CAN TESTIFY? X, THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY SAW TH EVENT, SHOUTED AND RAN, CAN BE PRESENT ON THE TRIAL?
My question is that will the res gestae only apply if the one testifying in court is the one who heard the statement (Y in this case) because X cannot testify for one reason or another? Or will it also apply if the person who made the statement (X in this case) is the one testifying in court (which my professor insists to be included)?
I made this (i hope a) logical question because what I learned is that testimony must be based on personal knowledge, otherwise, it would be hearsay. Hearsay, generally, is inadmissible because the person who uttered a statement cannot be cross-examined because of some reasons. There is no opportunity for cross-examination. Hence if a person who heard the statement made will be the one who will testify, then it will be a hearsay generally. So what I understood from hearsay is that there must be an out-of-court statement made by a person and such statement was repeated by ANOTHER person in court. But the rules admit of exceptions like dying declarations, part of res gestae, etc.
Like in dying declarations, X who knows of his impending death, told Y that "Juan shot me". Here, X made a statement and Y heard this and will testify in court about the statement.
Relating to my question and to what my professor insists, HOW CAN SPONTANEOUS STAEMENTS MADE BY A PERSON BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE INADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY IF HE HIMSELF CAN TESTIFY IN COURT? HOW CAN IT BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY IF THERE IS NO HEARSAY IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT WAS REPEATED IN COURT BY THE SAME PERSON WHO MADE SUCH STATEMENT? THERE IS NO "PERSON WHO HEARD A STATEMENT FROM ANOTHER".
I hope this is a valid question. The usual examples in the books or in jurisprudence are the person who heard the statement from another is the one testifying in court, which I do not contest. I am seeking your advice regarding this matter. Thank you.
