newspaper clipping

Petitioner questions the probative value of the newspaper clippings published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on June 26, 2007 which showed a photo of him with a firearm tucked to his side and his supposed exclusive interview. He claims that said newspaper clippings are mere hearsay, which are of no evidentiary value.

True, there were instances when the Court rejected newspaper articles as hearsay, when such articles are offered to prove their contents without any other competent and credible evidence to corroborate them. However, in Estrada v. Desierto, et al.,¹³ the Court held that not all hearsay evidence is inadmissible and how over time, exceptions to the hearsay rule have emerged. Hearsay evidence may be admitted by the courts on grounds of "relevance, trustworthiness and necessity."¹⁴ When certain facts are within judicial notice of the Court, newspaper accounts "only buttressed these facts as facts."¹⁵

Another exception to the hearsay rule is the doctrine of independently relevant statements, where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.¹⁶

Here, the newspaper clippings were introduced to prove that petitioner deliberately defied or challenged the authority of the COMELEC. As ratiocinated by the COMELEC in the challenged Resolution of August 7, 2007, it was not the mere content of the articles that was in issue, but petitioner’s conduct when he allowed himself to be interviewed in the manner and circumstances, adverted to in the COMELEC Resolution, on a pending controversy which was still brewing in the COMELEC. While petitioner claimed that he was misquoted, he denied neither the said interview nor his picture splashed on the newspaper with a firearm holstered at his side but simply relied on his objection to the hearsay nature of the newspaper clippings. It should be stressed that petitioner was no ordinary witness or respondent. He was under the administrative supervision of the COMELEC¹⁷ and it was incumbent upon him to demonstrate to the COMELEC that he had faithfully discharged his duties as dictated by law. His evasiveness and refusal to present his evidence as well as his reliance on technicalities to justify such refusal in the face of the allegations of fraud or anomalies and newspaper publication mentioned to the Contempt Charge and Show Cause Order amounted to an implied admission of the charges leveled against him.

LINTANG BEDOL, Petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.G.R. No. 179830 December 3, 2009

Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising discretion and on the basis of a mere newspaper account which is sometimes even referred to as hearsay evidence twice removed, took judicial notice of the supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls, a matter which was not and cannot be considered of common knowledge or of general notoriety. Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative regulation which was not yet in force when the order of dismissal was issued. Jurisprudence dictates that judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective. ¹⁹ The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration, which is one of the requirements before a court can take judicial notice of a fact.

Evidently, it was impossible for respondent judge, and it was definitely not proper for him, to have taken cognizance of CB Circular No. 1353, when the same was not yet in force at the time the improvident order of dismissal was issued.

A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 September 19, 1994

STATE PROSECUTORS, complainants,
vs.
JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila, respondent.