Deadman’s
Statute (Declaration Against Interest)
People of the
Philippines v. Toledo and Holgado (digest)
Facts: Sisenando Holgado and Filomeno Morales had disputes about
the occupation of certain land situated in the municipality of Pinamalayan,
Province of Mindoro. On the morning of June 15, 1927, the two men happened to
meet. The argument was renewed, and they agreed to fight. They did engage in a
bolo duel with a fatal result for Filomeno Morales, who was killed almost
instantly. Sisenando Holgado was also seriously wounded but was able to proceed
to a neighboring house. From there Sisenando Holgado was taken to the municipal
building where he made a sworn authenticated statement before the municipal
president, in which he declared that only he and Filomeno Morales fought and
that there was nobody else around. About one month later, Sisenando Holgado
died from the wounds received in the fight. The disputable point is whether the
accused Eugenio Toledo intervened in the quarrel and dealt a mortal blow to Filomeno
Morales. For the prosecution was presented the witness Justina Villanueva, the
querida of Filomeno Morales, who testified to the presence and participation of
Eugenio Toledo. Her testimony was partially corroborated by that of the witness
Justina Llave. On the other hand, the theory for the defense was that Toledo
was in another place when the fight between Morales and Holgado occurred and
that his only participation was on meeting Holgado, who was his landlord or
master, in helping him to a nearby house. To this effect is the testimony of
the accused and of Conrado Holgado, the son of Sisenando Holgado. The defense
also relied upon the affidavit of Sisenando Holgado, Exhibit 1, which was
identified by the municipal president of Pinamalayan.
Issue: 1. Is the
exhibit (exhibit 1) considered hearsay? Is it admissible as evidence?
2. Should the accused be acquitted?
Ruling: 1. Yes.
The affidavit is considered hearsay because the one who made it was not
presented in court under oath to testify on his written statement. This is the
general rule. But regarding the supporting question, the answer is also yes. The exhibit is admissible as
evidence the reason being that it is one of the accepted exceptions of the
hearsay rule. This is called the Declaration Against interest or in the book of
Agpalo, the dead man’s statute. Sec. 38 of the Rules of Court exemplifies this
rule.
Sec.38 Declaration against
interest.- The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration
was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant’s own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his
successors in interest and against third persons.
In
order for a statement to be admissible (in this case made as an exhibit) it
must comply the following requisites:
1.
That the declarant is dead or unable
to testify;
2.
That it relates to a fact against
the interest of the declarant;
3.
That at the time he maid said
declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid
interest; and
4.
That the declarant had no motive to
falsify and believed such declaration to be true.
In
the case it bar, it is clear as day that the declarant made the statement
before the municipal president before he died and that it was clearly against
his interest because it had the effect of exonerating Eugenio Toledo from
liability. Declarant was also aware of this fact and knows this to be true
because otherwise, he wouldn’t have made such a statement. Here the declarant
is deceased and his statements were made under oath. They also read in such a
way as to ring with the truth. When Sisenando Holgado declared "When we
fought, there was nobody present," it was at the end of just such a
rambling statement as a wounded man would be expected to make. When Sisenando
Holgado declared "I met one of my workers named Eugenio Toledo, who
accompanied me to the house of Dalmacio Manlisic," he did so in response
to a question by the municipal president. Exhibit 1 should have been received
not as conclusive evidence of innocence, but as evidence to be taken into
consideration in connection with the other proven facts.
2.
Yes. The accused should be
acquitted. Any man outside of a court and unhampered by the pressure of
technical procedure, unreasoned rules of evidence, and cumulative authority,
would say that if a man deliberately acknowledged himself to be the perpetrator
of a crime and exonerated the person charged with the crime, and there was
other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the statement, the accused man
should not be permitted to go to prison. He should be acquitted because of
reasonable doubt.
By: Alvin
G. Bontuyan
No comments:
Post a Comment