Jose Espineli vs. People G.R. No.179535, June 9, 2014, RULE 130, Sec. 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge.

 

RULE 130, Sec. 22.  Testimony confined to personal knowledge.

Jose Espineli vs. People G.R. No.179535, June 9, 2014

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS: Alberto Berbon, a Senior Desk Coordinator of DZMM, was shot in front of his house by Jose Espineli (Jose), Paredes and 3 other unidentified persons who immediately fled the crime scene on board a waiting car. Reyes was arrested for another crime and  confided to the NBI that he was willing to give vital information regarding the Berbon case. NBI Agent Segunial interviewed Reyes where Reyes claimed that he saw Jose and Paredes board a red car while armed with a .45 caliber and armalite and that Jose told Paredes that "ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon."  The victim’s widow, Sabina Berbon (Sabina) likewise testified. According to her, Reyes sought financial help so he could transfer his family to the province and protect them from any untoward consequence that may result from his giving information. Another witness, Rodolfo Dayao (Rodolfo), testified that he sold his red Ford Escort car to the Paredes and 2 other person who came to his residence. He later identified the said car from the photographs presented to him by the PNP. Dr. Lagat, declared in Alberto’s Autopsy Report that the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds and based on the size of the gunshot wounds or entrance, high-powered guns were used in the killing.

RTC found Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder as charged. CA affirmed RTC. 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. Neither can nighttime serve as an aggravating circumstance as the time of the commission of the crime was not even alleged in the Information. CA found petitioner guilty only of homicide instead of murder.

Jose anchors on the alleged erroneous admission in evidence of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Reyes for being hearsay and inadmissible. That there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. OSG representing People concurs with the Jose and recommends his acquittal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony of Reyes is a hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

HELD: No. Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

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. The statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact (Doctrine of independently relevant statements)

The testimony of NBI Agent Segunial of what Reyes confided to him, cannot be regarded as hearsay evidence. The agent’s testimony was not presented to prove the truth of such statement but only for the purpose of establishing that Reyes executed a sworn statement. 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.