Introduction

Under Philippine rules of evidence (primarily found in the Revised Rules on Evidence, as amended, specifically Rule 130), the hearsay rule is one of the core doctrines governing the admissibility of testimonial evidence. The rule bars the reception of out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, unless these statements fall under any of the recognized exceptions. Below is a comprehensive discussion of the hearsay rule, its rationale, definitions, exceptions, relevant jurisprudence, and practical considerations under Philippine law.

1. Definition and Rationale of the Hearsay Rule

1.1. Definition of Hearsay

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by a person (the declarant) who is not testifying in court, and that statement is offered in court to prove the truth of the matter it asserts.
It can be an oral or written statement, or even nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion (e.g., a gesture indicating “yes” or “no”).

1.2. Rationale for Exclusion

Lack of Cross-Examination: The central reason for excluding hearsay is the declarant’s unavailability for cross-examination at the time the statement is introduced. Cross-examination is critical to test the perception, memory, narration, and sincerity of the witness.
Veracity and Reliability: Because the person who made the out-of-court statement is not present (or not testifying about the statement under oath), the court cannot observe their demeanor or assess credibility in open court.
Judicial Economy and Fairness: Excluding hearsay avoids the time and confusion that could arise from introducing statements whose reliability cannot be effectively challenged.

2. General Rule and Exceptions

2.1. General Rule

Section 37, Rule 130 (2019 Amendments; previously Section 36 in earlier versions) generally states:

“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.”
A statement that does not satisfy the test of personal knowledge—i.e., the witness is only repeating what someone else said—will often be excluded unless it falls within a recognized exception.

2.2. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

The Revised Rules on Evidence enumerate several exceptions. While their specific numbering varies between older and newer versions of Rule 130, the substance remains consistent. Below are the key recognized exceptions:

Dying Declaration
- A statement made by a person under the consciousness of impending death and concerning the cause or circumstances of that death.
- Requirements:
  1. The declaration is made under the consciousness of impending death;
  2. The declarant is conscious that death is near and inevitable;
  3. The declaration refers to the cause or circumstance of the death; and
  4. The declarant would have been competent as a witness had he or she survived.
Declaration Against Interest
- A statement that is adverse to the declarant’s own interest at the time it was made, such that a reasonable person would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.
- Often involves pecuniary or proprietary interest but can also cover penal interest (e.g., admitting liability or wrongdoing).
Act or Declaration About Pedigree
- Covers statements concerning family history, genealogy, birth, marriage, or relationships, made before the controversy arose, by a person with knowledge of the facts.
- Typically includes statements about a person’s ancestry or familial ties.
Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree
- Allows evidence of family reputation or tradition about pedigree, especially when verified by relatives or within the community.
Common Reputation
- Reputation existing prior to the controversy, in respect to matters of public or general interest (e.g., boundaries of land, community customs).
- Admissible only if it does not appear to have originated from incompetent persons or from inaccurate sources.
Part of the Res Gestae
- Spontaneous Statement: Statements made under the stress of excitement caused by an event, with no opportunity to fabricate.
- Verbal Acts: Words that accompany and clarify the nature or quality of a physical act, making the act understandable.
Entries in the Course of Business (Business Records Exception)
- Written entries or records made in the ordinary course of business, at or near the time of the transaction, by someone who has a duty to record and personal knowledge of the facts.
- Often includes books of accounts, payrolls, or invoices regularly kept in a business environment.
Entries in Official Records (Public Documents Exception)
- Records made by a public officer in the performance of official duty, particularly those required by law to be kept.
- The officer must have personal knowledge of the facts stated or must be receiving information from someone obligated by law to report the facts.
Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding
- The testimony or deposition of a witness in a previous judicial proceeding is admissible if:
  1. The witness is now dead or otherwise unavailable;
  2. The testimony was given against the same parties on the same subject matter;
  3. There was an opportunity for cross-examination in the former case.
Admission by a Party-Opponent (Non-Hearsay in the 2019 Amendments)
- Strictly speaking, the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence classify admissions of a party-opponent as not hearsay and therefore directly admissible.
- This includes statements made by the party himself or herself, or by a representative or agent authorized to make such a statement during the existence and in furtherance of the relationship.
Co-Conspirator’s Statement (Non-Hearsay in the 2019 Amendments)
- Statements by a co-conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objectives are admissible against other co-conspirators.
- Again, under the revised rules, these are treated as non-hearsay.
Learned Treatises
- Statements contained in reliable treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by expert testimony or judicial notice.
- May be used to impeach or support expert testimony.
Commercial Lists and the Like
- Market quotations, tabulations, lists, or directories generally relied upon by the public or by persons in a particular business.
Other Recognized Exceptions
- Statements under the “Doctrine of Trustworthiness” if indicated under jurisprudence or statutory modifications.
- Electronic Evidence (e.g., e-mails, text messages), if they satisfy reliability requirements and fall within any hearsay exception or are otherwise non-hearsay.

3. Non-Hearsay Statements

3.1. Distinction from Hearsay

Certain statements that might appear to be hearsay at first glance are treated as non-hearsay under the Philippine rules and jurisprudence if they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Examples:
1. Verbal Acts: Words of offer or acceptance in a contract, or defamatory words in a libel/slander case; the statement is relevant because it has legal significance by its utterance, not because of its truth.
2. Effect on the Listener or Reader: Statements that show the listener’s state of mind, notice, or motive. The statement’s value is to show why the listener acted in a certain way, not the truth of the statement.
3. Admissions by a Party-Opponent and Co-Conspirator Statements (as clarified in the 2019 Rules).

3.2. Implications of Classification

By classifying admissions and co-conspirator statements as non-hearsay, the courts allow them in as evidence without requiring them to fall under an exception.
Trial courts must remain vigilant to ensure the statement is offered for a permissible purpose (e.g., showing effect on the listener, or to establish an operative fact) rather than for its truth if it does not qualify otherwise.

4. Practical Considerations

Objection Timing
- A hearsay objection must be timely raised as soon as the hearsay nature of the testimony or exhibit becomes apparent. Failure to object may result in a waiver.
Examining Foundations
- When offering an out-of-court statement under an exception, counsel must lay the proper foundation: show the relevance, the declarant’s personal knowledge, the reliability of the source, and compliance with the specific requisites of the exception.
Multiple Hearsay (Hearsay Within Hearsay)
- If a document contains several layers of statements, each layer must independently qualify under an exception or be classified as non-hearsay.
- For instance, a public officer’s record quoting a statement from a private individual involves two layers of potential hearsay.
Unavailability of Witness
- Certain exceptions (dying declaration, former testimony, statement against interest) typically require that the declarant be unavailable to testify. Unavailability includes death, insanity, absence, privilege, or refusal in defiance of a court order.
Burden of Proof
- The proponent of the out-of-court statement bears the burden to demonstrate admissibility under an exception or that the statement is non-hearsay.
- Courts interpret hearsay exceptions narrowly to protect the right of cross-examination.

5. Relevant Philippine Jurisprudence

People v. Reyes, G.R. No. [various citations]: Reiterates that hearsay evidence is without probative value unless it falls under an exception and that the right of confrontation is a fundamental safeguard in criminal proceedings.
People v. Santiago, G.R. No. [various citations]: Affirms the strict requirements for dying declarations, emphasizing the necessity of proving the declarant’s sense of impending death.
Heirs of Ureta v. Heirs of Ureta, G.R. No. [various citations]: Discusses declarations against interest and the necessity of the declarant’s unavailability and personal knowledge of the fact asserted.
Sy v. People, G.R. No. [various citations]: Illustrates the use of business records exception, requiring the proponent to establish the regularity of the record-making practice.

(Note: Case citations are illustrative placeholders—counsel should consult updated Supreme Court Reports Annotated [SCRA] or Philippine Reports for exact citations and detailed rulings.)

6. Summary of Key Points

General Rule: Out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted are inadmissible as hearsay.
Exceptions: Well-established categories (dying declarations, declaration against interest, pedigree, official records, business records, etc.) allow admission if specific conditions are met.
Non-Hearsay: Admissions by a party-opponent, co-conspirator statements, and certain verbal or operative acts fall outside the hearsay prohibition.
Foundation: Proper foundational requirements—authenticity, reliability, necessity—must be established to admit hearsay under an exception.
Policy and Purpose: The hearsay rule safeguards cross-examination, ensures reliability, and prevents judicial confusion. It is a cornerstone of due process and the right to confront witnesses, especially in criminal proceedings.

7. Practical Tips for Litigators

Prepare Foundations: Before offering any statement that may be labeled hearsay, be ready to argue its admissibility under a recognized exception or to show it is non-hearsay.
Anticipate Objections: Know your adversary’s possible hearsay objections; pre-empt them by laying out the exception thoroughly and clearly.
Utilize Depositions Correctly: If relying on a deposition or testimony from a former proceeding, confirm that the witness is truly unavailable and that there was an opportunity for cross-examination.
Stay Updated: The Supreme Court periodically refines hearsay principles, particularly regarding electronic evidence. Always refer to the latest rulings and official issuances.
Document Reliability: When using business or official records, secure testimony from the custodian of records or other qualified witness to show the record-making routine and trustworthiness.

Conclusion

The hearsay rule under Rule 130 of the Philippine Revised Rules on Evidence is a critical safeguard to ensure that only reliable and testable evidence is admitted in court. While it broadly excludes out-of-court statements, it provides multiple exceptions and classifications of non-hearsay to balance the need for reliable evidence against the need for completeness of proof. Competent counsel must be adept at identifying whether a given statement is hearsay, determining if it falls within an exception, laying the proper foundation, and objecting to inadmissible hearsay proffered by the opposing party. The meticulous application of the hearsay rule promotes fairness, protects the right of confrontation, and upholds the integrity of judicial proceedings in the Philippines.