Below is a comprehensive, straight-to-the-point discussion on Declarations Against Interest under Philippine law, specifically under the Rules of Court (Rule 130, on the Hearsay Rule and its exceptions). This covers definitions, requisites, rationale, distinctions from other similar evidentiary concepts, and select jurisprudential guidance. All citations and references conform to Philippine legal principles and the latest amendments to the Rules of Court (2019 Revised Rules on Evidence).

1. Overview of the Hearsay Rule and Its Exceptions

Definition of Hearsay
- Rule 130, Section 37 (2019 Revised Rules on Evidence) defines hearsay as any “evidence of a statement made other than by a witness while testifying at a hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.”
- Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the statement’s maker is not in court to be subjected to cross-examination.
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
- Recognizing that certain out-of-court statements carry inherent indicia of trustworthiness, the law provides specific exceptions.
- One of these enumerated exceptions is the Declaration Against Interest under Rule 130, Section 39 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence.

2. Declaration Against Interest: Text and Rationale

2.1 Text of the Rule (Rule 130, Section 39)

“Sec. 39. Declaration Against Interest. – The declaration made by a person deceased or unable to testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was personally known to the declarant, is admissible. The declaration is admissible if at the time it was made, it was so far contrary to the declarant’s own interest, or so far subjected him or her to risk of civil or criminal liability, or so far tended to render invalid a claim by him or her against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true.”

(Note: Wording may be slightly adapted from the official text in various sources, but the substance is the same.)

2.2 Rationale Behind the Exception

A declaration against interest is presumed trustworthy because:

Risk of Harm to the Declarant – People ordinarily do not make statements that would jeopardize their financial, property, or personal interests (including criminal liability) unless they believe these statements to be true.
Unavailability of the Declarant – Since the declarant is deceased or otherwise unavailable, ordinary cross-examination is impossible. Despite this, the law deems such statements more reliable due to the declarant’s self-prejudice at the time of utterance.

In simpler terms, because the statement is so clearly adverse to the declarant, it is unlikely to have been fabricated. Hence, it is permitted as an exception to the hearsay rule.

3. Elements and Requisites of Declaration Against Interest

For a statement to qualify under Declaration Against Interest, the following must be established:

Declarant’s Unavailability
- The declarant must be unavailable to testify in court. Typically, this covers:
  - Declarant has died;
  - Declarant is physically or mentally unable to testify;
  - Declarant cannot be compelled to testify for some lawful reason (e.g., absence from the jurisdiction, or invocation of privilege).
Personal Knowledge of the Declarant
- The declarant must have direct, personal knowledge of the facts stated. Pure hearsay within a hearsay is excluded; the law insists that the declarant speak from firsthand knowledge.
Statement Must Be Adverse to the Declarant’s Interest
- At the time the statement was made, it was so prejudicial to the declarant’s own:
  - Pecuniary or proprietary interest (e.g., a statement that could cause financial damage or property loss to the declarant);
  - Penal interest (e.g., a statement admitting guilt or exposing the declarant to criminal liability or potential prosecution); or
  - Other legal interest (e.g., a statement that invalidates a potential claim by the declarant against another).
- The statement must be of such a nature that a reasonable person would not have said it unless he or she believed it to be true.
Lack of Motive to Falsify
- The surrounding circumstances must show that the declarant had no improper motive to falsify. While not always explicitly spelled out in a single phrase in the rule, jurisprudence emphasizes that the trustworthiness of the statement depends on an assessment that the declarant’s interest truly weighed against making a false statement.
Entry into Evidence
- The proponent of the evidence must lay the proper foundation (i.e., that the declarant is unavailable, had personal knowledge, and was aware that the statement could harm his/her interests).

4. Distinctions from Similar Concepts

Declarations Against Interest vs. Admissions (Rule 130, Section 26)
- Admission by a party: A statement by a party to the case offered against that party. The party may still be alive or available, but the statement is used against him/her. It does not require unavailability of the speaker.
- Declaration against interest: Typically involves a third person (not necessarily a party-litigant) who is unavailable. The statement must be self-damaging to that third person.
Declarations Against Interest vs. Confessions
- Confession: An acknowledgment of guilt by an accused in a criminal case, which must follow constitutional safeguards (e.g., custodial investigation rights). A confession is made by an accused concerning the crime charged.
- Declaration against interest: May involve criminal liability or civil liability, but it is admitted specifically because the declarant is unavailable and the statement is self-prejudicial.
Declarations Against Interest vs. Res Gestae
- Res Gestae (Rule 130, Sec. 42): Deals with spontaneous statements closely linked to a startling event, or statements accompanying an equivocal act. The spontaneity and immediacy of the statement ensure trustworthiness.
- Declaration against interest: Does not rely on spontaneity or immediacy, but rather on the self-harming nature of the statement and the declarant’s unavailability.

5. Illustrative Jurisprudence

While Philippine Supreme Court rulings often discuss declarations against interest in combination with other hearsay exceptions, the following highlights key principles:

People v. Andales, G.R. No. 191021, March 21, 2012
- Emphasized that for a statement to be admissible as a declaration against interest, the declarant’s factual knowledge and the unavailability condition must be clearly established.
People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 188296, January 15, 2014
- Stressed that courts must be satisfied with the trustworthiness of the statement (i.e., that it was truly adverse to the declarant’s interest). Conclusory claims about self-incrimination are insufficient absent proof of personal knowledge and actual prejudice to the declarant.
Other relevant cases such as People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 177570, May 14, 2010 similarly underscore that the proponent of the evidence bears the burden of proving the statement’s compliance with each element of the rule.

6. Practical Application and Tips

Lay the Proper Foundation
- Demonstrate that the declarant is indeed unavailable. Show death certificate, affidavit of inability, proof of disappearance, etc.
- Show the declarant’s personal knowledge. Identify how or why the declarant knew the facts.
Highlight the Self-Prejudicial Nature
- Specify if it is penal or pecuniary interest. For example, if the declarant admits forging documents that would subject him to criminal liability, highlight how a reasonable person would not fabricate such admission.
Beware of Multiple Hearsay Layers
- Ensure the statement itself is from the unavailable declarant and not embedded with additional out-of-court assertions from yet another individual.
Corroborative Evidence
- Although not strictly required by the rule, presenting corroborative proof that supports the declaration’s reliability bolsters its credibility in the eyes of the court.

7. Summary of Key Points

Definition: A Declaration Against Interest is an out-of-court statement made by an unavailable declarant that is so contrary to the declarant’s own interest at the time it was said that no reasonable person would have uttered it unless it was true.
Purpose: It circumvents the hearsay prohibition by harnessing the high likelihood of truthfulness in a statement that harms the declarant.
Requisites: (a) unavailability of the declarant, (b) personal knowledge, (c) statement’s adverseness to the declarant’s interest, (d) trustworthiness in the face of potential self-harm.
Scope: Covers penal, pecuniary, or proprietary interests and possibly other legal interests.
Distinction: Different from a party admission and from a confession. The unavailability requirement is key.

8. Concluding Note

The rule on Declaration Against Interest embodies the balancing act between excluding out-of-court statements as hearsay and recognizing certain statements that bear sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. Philippine courts strictly examine whether each element of the exception is met, particularly the declarant’s unavailability and the clear self-prejudice in the statement. Practitioners must be meticulous in laying the groundwork to ensure admissibility, keeping in mind that the statement must indeed appear inherently reliable—precisely because it was injurious to the speaker’s interests.

In Sum

Declarations Against Interest offer a powerful tool in Philippine litigation to admit otherwise hearsay evidence, provided the strict requisites under Rule 130, Section 39 are satisfied.
Proper identification of the declarant’s unavailability, personal knowledge, and self-injuring nature of the statement is crucial to avoid exclusion by the courts.
This exception reflects the legal principle that individuals do not typically make statements contrary to their own interest unless compelled by truth.