Counter-Affidavit
Inadmissible in Evidence
Appellant posits that the trial court erred in not admitting the counter-affidavit executed by Eufracio Almocera, who died before the trial. He argues that the counter-affidavit should have been admitted under the doctrine of independently relevant statement; that is, "not to prove the truth of the facts therein but only to prove that such writings were executed."[35] He further argues that the counter-affidavit "will corroborate xxx a very material fact that indeed Cornelio Valencia [did] not know who the assailants really were as he did not see them."
We do not agree. Courts should consider a piece of evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered.[36] In this case, appellant argues that the said document should have been admitted for the sole purpose of proving that such counter-affidavit was executed. The counter-affidavit, therefore, should not have been used for the purpose specified by the defense counsel during the trial: to "disprove the testimony of Cornelio Valencia"[37] or, as he subsequently declared in the Appellant’s Brief, to corroborate the testimony of Defense Witness Santillan.[38] For the court to consider the substance of the counter-affidavit is to give probative value to the statements of an affiant who could no longer be subjected to cross-examination, in violation of the hearsay rule.[39]
In any event, even if the counter-affidavit were admitted to disprove the eyewitness account of Valencia, the prosecution’s case would still prosper. The guilt of appellant rests not only on the testimony of Valencia, but also on the more detailed account of Barrun.
Inadmissible in Evidence
Appellant posits that the trial court erred in not admitting the counter-affidavit executed by Eufracio Almocera, who died before the trial. He argues that the counter-affidavit should have been admitted under the doctrine of independently relevant statement; that is, "not to prove the truth of the facts therein but only to prove that such writings were executed."[35] He further argues that the counter-affidavit "will corroborate xxx a very material fact that indeed Cornelio Valencia [did] not know who the assailants really were as he did not see them."
We do not agree. Courts should consider a piece of evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered.[36] In this case, appellant argues that the said document should have been admitted for the sole purpose of proving that such counter-affidavit was executed. The counter-affidavit, therefore, should not have been used for the purpose specified by the defense counsel during the trial: to "disprove the testimony of Cornelio Valencia"[37] or, as he subsequently declared in the Appellant’s Brief, to corroborate the testimony of Defense Witness Santillan.[38] For the court to consider the substance of the counter-affidavit is to give probative value to the statements of an affiant who could no longer be subjected to cross-examination, in violation of the hearsay rule.[39]
In any event, even if the counter-affidavit were admitted to disprove the eyewitness account of Valencia, the prosecution’s case would still prosper. The guilt of appellant rests not only on the testimony of Valencia, but also on the more detailed account of Barrun.
No comments:
Post a Comment