Saturday, November 26, 2016

admissible as part of the res gestae they having been caused by and did result from the startling, if not gruesome, occurrence that she witnessed

The trial court was of the opinion that what Ms. Aguilar heard or saw does not merely constitute an independently relevant statement which it considered as an "exception to the hearsay rule, only as to the tenor rather than the intrinsic truth or falsity of its contents."[18] We will clarify this.  Insofar as the statements of Rufina Alconyes are concerned, they are admissible as part of the res gestae they having been caused by and did result from the startling, if not gruesome, occurrence that she witnessed; and these were shortly thereafter uttered by her with spontaneity, without prior opportunity to contrive the same.  The report made thereof by Josephine Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually there and personally heard the statements of Alconyes which she recounted in court.  Her account of said statements of Alconyes are admissible under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, with respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof, since independent of the truth or falsity of the same they are relevant to the issue on the cause of the death of the victim.

[ G.R. No. 119359, December 10, 1996 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERT CLOUD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. 

No comments:

Post a Comment