This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-04-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker did not take the witness stand.[21] The sworn statement of Ignacio is of this kind. The affidavit was not identified and its averments were not affirmed by affiant Ignacio. Accordingly, Exhibit "3" must be excluded from the judicial proceedings being an inadmissible hearsay evidence. It cannot be deemed a declaration against interest for the matter to be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule because the declarant was not the seller (Emilio), but his father (Ignacio). | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's argument that Palomares's affidavit was a "declaration against interest" is, strictly speaking, inaccurate and irrelevant. A declaration against interest, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, refers to a "declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify against the interest of a 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."[80] A declaration against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule.[81] As such, it pertains only to the admissibility of, not the weight accorded to, testimonial evidence.[82] | |||||
|
2011-09-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The OCA, in its Report of March 23, 2010,[10] agreed with Judge Estacio's finding and recommendation. It cited Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,[11] and our ruling in Unchuan v. Lozada[12] that "a man's acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him" because "it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if they do not." As well, the OCA argued that the solicitation of money from a litigant in exchange for a favorable decision violates Sections 1 and 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.[13] Thus, the OCA recommended that the case be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be found guilty of gross misconduct. Since the respondent had been dropped from the rolls, the OCA recommended that he be fined the amount of P40,000.00, with forfeiture of all the retirement benefits he is entitled to except accrued leave credits, if any, and that he be barred from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. | |||||
|
2010-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, there is a vital distinction between admissions against interest and declarations against interest. Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness.[15] Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.[16] In the present case, since Basilisa is respondents' predecessor-in-interest and is, thus, in privity with the latter's legal interest, the former's sworn statement, if proven genuine and duly executed, should be considered as an admission against interest. | |||||