This case involves the murder of Alberto Berbon in 1996. Romeo Reyes gave a sworn statement to NBI Agent Dave Segunial implicating the petitioner. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court held the statement was not hearsay because its relevance was that the statement was made, not the truth of its contents. As a sworn, notarized statement, it could be presented as evidence without further authentication. The Court found the petitioner guilty of homicide, not murder, as no witnesses saw the killing.
This case involves the murder of Alberto Berbon in 1996. Romeo Reyes gave a sworn statement to NBI Agent Dave Segunial implicating the petitioner. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court held the statement was not hearsay because its relevance was that the statement was made, not the truth of its contents. As a sworn, notarized statement, it could be presented as evidence without further authentication. The Court found the petitioner guilty of homicide, not murder, as no witnesses saw the killing.
This case involves the murder of Alberto Berbon in 1996. Romeo Reyes gave a sworn statement to NBI Agent Dave Segunial implicating the petitioner. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court held the statement was not hearsay because its relevance was that the statement was made, not the truth of its contents. As a sworn, notarized statement, it could be presented as evidence without further authentication. The Court found the petitioner guilty of homicide, not murder, as no witnesses saw the killing.
This case involves the murder of Alberto Berbon in 1996. Romeo Reyes gave a sworn statement to NBI Agent Dave Segunial implicating the petitioner. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court held the statement was not hearsay because its relevance was that the statement was made, not the truth of its contents. As a sworn, notarized statement, it could be presented as evidence without further authentication. The Court found the petitioner guilty of homicide, not murder, as no witnesses saw the killing.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
ESPINELI vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No.179535 June 9, 2014
FACTS: In the early evening of December 15, 1996, Alberto Berbon, a 49-year old Senior Desk Coordinator of the radio station DZMM, was shot in the head and different parts of the body in front of his house in Imus, Cavite, by unidentified malefactors who immediately fled the crime scene on board a waiting car. Meanwhile, the group of Atty. Dizon of the NBI arrested and took into custody Romeo Reyes for the crime of Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon. Reyes confided to the group of Atty. Dizon that he was willing to give vital information regarding the Berbon case. In due course, NBI Agent Dave Segunial interviewed Reyes on February 10, 1997, and reduced his statement into writing whereby Reyes claimed that on December 15, 1996, he saw petitioner and Sotero Paredes board a red car while armed with a .45 caliber firearm and armalite, respectively; and that petitioner told Paredes that “ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon.”12 Subsequently, Reyes posted bail and was released on February 14, 1997. Thenceforth, he jumped bail and was never again heard of. NBI Agent Segunial testified on these facts during the trial. Petitioner, on the other hand, did not adduce evidence for his defense. Instead, he filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court. As no action whatsoever was taken thereon by the trial court, petitioner just moved that the case be deemed submitted for decision. RTC adjudged petitioner guilty of murder. The CA affirmed with modification the findings of the trial court. It ratiocinated that since none of the prosecution witnesses saw how the killing of the victim was perpetrated, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated. It found the appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Petitioner takes vigorous exception to the said findings, insisting that the said sworn statement belongs to the category of hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible. He asserts that its contents were never confirmed or authenticated by Reyes, thus, it lacks probative value.
ISSUE: Whether or not the said sworn statement belongs to the category of hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible.
HELD: No. Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.34 This is known as the doctrine of independently relevant statements.
What the prosecution sought to be admitted was the fact that Reyes made such narration of facts in his sworn statement and not necessarily to prove the truth thereof. Thus, the testimony of NBI Agent Segunial is in the nature of an independently relevant statement where what is relevant is the fact that Reyes made such statement and the truth and falsity thereof is immaterial. In such a case, the statement of the witness is admissible as evidence and the hearsay rule does not apply. 38 Moreover, the written statement of Reyes is a notarized document having been duly subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Cesar A. Bacani, a supervising agent of the NBI. As such, it may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being a prima facie evidence of the due execution of this instrument or document involved pursuant to Section 30 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
