Post by atty36252 on Feb 10, 2008 18:21:38 GMT -5
The administration lackeys are again mouthing a predictable line – that Lozada’s revelations amount to nothing but hearsay, which is inadmissible in court. This may be the reason for their bravado of challenging Lozada to repeat his revelations in court. The bluster, however, shows a poor appreciation of the hearsay rule.
Hearsay is:
1. A statement made by a declarant;
2. Made out of court;
3. Heard by a witness, who is testifying in court about that statement; and
4. The statement is presented for the truth of the substance of the statement.
There are two individuals involved here, the declarant, and the witness who heard the statement. Observe the fourth element; the statement must be presented for the truth of its substance – to prove the truth of the text of the statement. So, if the statement is presented not for its truth, then it is not hearsay, and is admissible in court.
Is there a case when a statement is presented but not for its truth? Yes, as we detail below.
A. Hearsay presented to prove that something was uttered.
A statement may be presented merely to prove that something was said, not to prove the truth of its text. For example, if Iking says, “Guriang is a prostitute”, and this is heard by Jun. If Guriang sues Iking for oral defamation, and Jun is presented to testify that Jun heard Iking utter the words “Guriang is a prostitute”, that is not hearsay. It is not being presented to prove that Guriang is a prostitute, but to prove that Iking uttered a defamatory remark.
So the statement of Joey De Venecia that Arroyo said “Back off” is admissible, because it is not meant to prove the truth of the statement to back off. It is presented to prove that it was uttered - that Joey was being bullied to favor Abalos.
B. Statement of existing emotional, mental or physical condition.
1. Statement of intent of the declarant.
A statement may be made merely to reflect the declarant’s intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health. That will be an exception to the hearsay rule.
For example, Dadong may say, “They said my daughter is a prostitute, I will avenge our honor.” This statement is a statement of intent, and may be admissible, if for instance, Iking dies of poisoning. Dadong in this case, will be a suspect, for he had the intent. Whoever heard Dadong’s statement may be presented to testify to the fact that Dadong made the statement.
Remember that the hearsay rule only relates to the admissibility of the evidence – that it will be included in the record. As to its weight, whether the judge finds it believable or not, considers it or discounts it, is entirely left to the discretion of the judge.
Similarly, the declarant (Romy) may state: “Jun, moderate their greed.” That declaration is being presented not to prove its truth – that somebody is greedy. It shows the intent of the declarant to reduce the price of a contract. The testimony of Jun, therefore, is admissible, for he heard Romy state Romy’s intent. That intent, however, also proves the implication, that a bribe is in the works; there was something that was being moderated.
2. Statement that affects a party’s actions.
A statement may also indicate the state of mind of a party, which impels a certain act. Say for example that, Romy and Ben had a heated altercation, and Ben reached into his coat pocket. Tom shouts “Romy, he’s got a gun.” Romy then takes a baseball bat that is lying nearby and hits Ben and Ben dies. It turns out that Ben was about to show Romy a loan document signed by a foreign official.
If Jun testifies that he heard Tom say “Romy, he’s got a gun”, that statement will be admissible, for it is being presented, not to prove that Ben had a gun. It is being presented to prove the effect on Romy’s mental state. Romy thought he was in mortal danger, so he hit Ben.
Similarly, the statement of Lozada that he heard the statements "Huwag kayong dadaan diyan. Huwag kayong dadaan diyan. Nandiyan ang mga taga-Senado" is admissible, because it is not being presented for the truth of the statement – that the Senate personnel were at the airport. It is being presented to prove that the statement affected the moves of the “escorts” of Lozada - they changed direction, and took another route. It also proves their intent of trying to evade the Senate personnel, to spirit Lozada away.
Similarly, the statement “Sec, may 200 ka dito”, which Romulo Neri heard Benjamin Abalos utter is admissible. It is admissible because it is being presented not for its truth; Abalos may or may not have had any intention of paying Neri. It is being presented to prove that an attempt was made to affect Neri’s mental state – to approve the contract.
So remember this little explanation when the lapdog lawyers, Apostol, Gonzales, Gaite, et al, embark on their chorus about hearsay evidence.
Hearsay is:
1. A statement made by a declarant;
2. Made out of court;
3. Heard by a witness, who is testifying in court about that statement; and
4. The statement is presented for the truth of the substance of the statement.
There are two individuals involved here, the declarant, and the witness who heard the statement. Observe the fourth element; the statement must be presented for the truth of its substance – to prove the truth of the text of the statement. So, if the statement is presented not for its truth, then it is not hearsay, and is admissible in court.
Is there a case when a statement is presented but not for its truth? Yes, as we detail below.
A. Hearsay presented to prove that something was uttered.
A statement may be presented merely to prove that something was said, not to prove the truth of its text. For example, if Iking says, “Guriang is a prostitute”, and this is heard by Jun. If Guriang sues Iking for oral defamation, and Jun is presented to testify that Jun heard Iking utter the words “Guriang is a prostitute”, that is not hearsay. It is not being presented to prove that Guriang is a prostitute, but to prove that Iking uttered a defamatory remark.
So the statement of Joey De Venecia that Arroyo said “Back off” is admissible, because it is not meant to prove the truth of the statement to back off. It is presented to prove that it was uttered - that Joey was being bullied to favor Abalos.
B. Statement of existing emotional, mental or physical condition.
1. Statement of intent of the declarant.
A statement may be made merely to reflect the declarant’s intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health. That will be an exception to the hearsay rule.
For example, Dadong may say, “They said my daughter is a prostitute, I will avenge our honor.” This statement is a statement of intent, and may be admissible, if for instance, Iking dies of poisoning. Dadong in this case, will be a suspect, for he had the intent. Whoever heard Dadong’s statement may be presented to testify to the fact that Dadong made the statement.
Remember that the hearsay rule only relates to the admissibility of the evidence – that it will be included in the record. As to its weight, whether the judge finds it believable or not, considers it or discounts it, is entirely left to the discretion of the judge.
Similarly, the declarant (Romy) may state: “Jun, moderate their greed.” That declaration is being presented not to prove its truth – that somebody is greedy. It shows the intent of the declarant to reduce the price of a contract. The testimony of Jun, therefore, is admissible, for he heard Romy state Romy’s intent. That intent, however, also proves the implication, that a bribe is in the works; there was something that was being moderated.
2. Statement that affects a party’s actions.
A statement may also indicate the state of mind of a party, which impels a certain act. Say for example that, Romy and Ben had a heated altercation, and Ben reached into his coat pocket. Tom shouts “Romy, he’s got a gun.” Romy then takes a baseball bat that is lying nearby and hits Ben and Ben dies. It turns out that Ben was about to show Romy a loan document signed by a foreign official.
If Jun testifies that he heard Tom say “Romy, he’s got a gun”, that statement will be admissible, for it is being presented, not to prove that Ben had a gun. It is being presented to prove the effect on Romy’s mental state. Romy thought he was in mortal danger, so he hit Ben.
Similarly, the statement of Lozada that he heard the statements "Huwag kayong dadaan diyan. Huwag kayong dadaan diyan. Nandiyan ang mga taga-Senado" is admissible, because it is not being presented for the truth of the statement – that the Senate personnel were at the airport. It is being presented to prove that the statement affected the moves of the “escorts” of Lozada - they changed direction, and took another route. It also proves their intent of trying to evade the Senate personnel, to spirit Lozada away.
Similarly, the statement “Sec, may 200 ka dito”, which Romulo Neri heard Benjamin Abalos utter is admissible. It is admissible because it is being presented not for its truth; Abalos may or may not have had any intention of paying Neri. It is being presented to prove that an attempt was made to affect Neri’s mental state – to approve the contract.
So remember this little explanation when the lapdog lawyers, Apostol, Gonzales, Gaite, et al, embark on their chorus about hearsay evidence.