Entries in official records | Exceptions to the hearsay rule | Hearsay Rule | Testimonial Evidence (RULE 130) | EVIDENCE

ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
(Under Philippine Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, specifically Section 44 of the old rules and Section 49 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence)

1. Overview

Under Philippine law on evidence, the general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Hearsay refers to any out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, made by someone other than the witness who testifies at trial. However, there are well-established exceptions to this hearsay rule, recognizing that certain types of statements—if made under circumstances that assure reliability—may be admitted as evidence even if the declarant is not available or cannot be cross-examined.

Entries in official records constitute one such exception. The governing provision is found in Section 49 of Rule 130 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (formerly Section 44 of Rule 130 of the old rules). It states:

“Entries in official records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”

Because public officers (or private individuals with a legally imposed duty) are presumed to have performed their work with regularity and under circumstance ensuring reliability, their entries or records about certain events are given special evidentiary weight and allowed into evidence to prove the facts recorded.

2. Rationale Behind the Exception

  1. Necessity

    • The exception rests partly on the idea that it would be impractical and burdensome to require the public officer (or the individual charged by law to record certain facts) to testify personally in every case where the recorded fact is relevant.
    • Such records are often maintained for the benefit of the public and society, and requiring personal testimony would be cumbersome.

  2. Trustworthiness

    • Official records are presumed to be made pursuant to official duty, with the attendant presumption of regular performance of that duty.
    • The law assumes that a public officer, in making or keeping records required by his or her office, will do so accurately and honestly.

Together, these twin justifications—necessity and trustworthiness—allow courts to admit these entries into evidence under the hearsay exceptions.

3. Elements or Requisites for Admissibility

To invoke “entries in official records” as an exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent must establish all of the following:

  1. Made by a Public Officer or a Person Specifically Authorized by Law

    • The entry must be created by a public officer of the Philippines (that is, any officer who performs a public function) or by a private individual who, by law, is required to record or report certain facts (e.g., a notary public with a statutory duty, a medical registrar required by law to record births or deaths, etc.).

  2. Made in the Performance of an Official or Legal Duty

    • The public officer or authorized individual must have the responsibility (by virtue of law, rule, or regulation) to make or keep such records.
    • The subject matter of the entries must fall within the scope of their official duties (e.g., a civil registrar recording births, marriages, and deaths).

  3. Entries Relate to Facts Required to be Recorded

    • The entry must concern facts or details that the law or regulations specifically require the officer or authorized person to record in the official books or documents.

  4. Entries Made Promptly or At/Within a Reasonable Time of the Event

    • While not always strictly enumerated in older jurisprudence, good practice and established case law require that the record be contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous to the event—this ensures reliability.
    • The more promptly an entry is made, the stronger its evidentiary value.

  5. Trustworthiness of the Source and Method

    • The circumstances must indicate that the method of preparing the record, as well as the source of the information, was credible. Typically, courts rely on the presumption that official duties are regularly performed.
    • If there is an indication that the official record was tampered with, made outside the scope of duty, or lacks sufficient indicia of trustworthiness, the court may rule it inadmissible despite the hearsay exception.

4. Legal Effect: Prima Facie Evidence

Under the rule, entries in official records are deemed prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. This means:

  1. Presumption of Regularity

    • The contents of the official record are presumed to be correct and accurate in the first instance, shifting the burden to the adverse party to disprove or rebut them.

  2. Not Conclusive

    • Being “prima facie” does not make it automatically conclusive. The opposing party may present controverting evidence to overcome the presumption and show the entries to be erroneous or falsified.

5. Illustrative Examples and Common Applications

  1. Civil Registry Documents

    • Birth certificates, marriage certificates, and death certificates from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) or the Local Civil Registrar fall under this exception, provided they are properly authenticated. They are prime examples of entries in official records made in the regular course of a public officer’s duty.
    • Courts routinely admit these documents to prove facts of birth, marriage, and death.

  2. Notarial Registers

    • Notaries public maintain a Notarial Register of documents notarized. Entries may be admitted to prove facts regarding execution, date, or parties involved, so long as the notary is mandated by law to maintain such records.

  3. Police Blotters

    • Police blotters are generally prepared by police officers in the performance of their official function. Courts have admitted them to show that a certain incident was reported at a particular date and time.
    • However, the content of the blotter (e.g., the detailed narration of events) does not automatically become conclusive proof of those events; it is merely prima facie. The reliability and circumstances of the preparation may still be examined.

  4. Entries in Official Logbooks and Government Agency Records

    • Records of official transactions, appointments, or visits, such as in immigration entries or shipping and port authority logbooks, similarly enjoy the presumption.

6. Authentication and Proof of Official Records

6.1. Domestic Official Records

  1. Presentation of the Original
    • If the original official record is available, it can be produced in court.
  2. Certified True Copies
    • More commonly, a properly issued certified true copy of an official record suffices. Under Rule 132, copies must be attested by the officer in custody of the original (or their deputy), and they often bear the official seal if there is one.

6.2. Foreign Official Records

  1. Need for Authentication
    • If the record is from a foreign country, the rules on authentication of foreign public documents apply. It typically involves:
      • Certification by the legal custodian of the record; and
      • Authentication by a Philippine diplomatic or consular official abroad (unless the country is a party to treaties or conventions like the Apostille Convention, in which case an Apostille is used instead of consular authentication).
  2. Compliance with Rule 132 and Applicable Treaties
    • Under the Rules of Court, there must be proper authentication consistent with Philippine law and any relevant treaty or convention (e.g., the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention).

7. Jurisprudential Insights

Philippine Supreme Court decisions consistently uphold the admissibility of entries in official records, emphasizing the following points:

  1. Presumption of Regularity

    • Courts presume that public officers properly discharge their duties. Therefore, official records are prima facie reliable (e.g., People v. Del Castillo).

  2. Rebuttable Character

    • The opponent may challenge the accuracy of the entries by showing that the officer who prepared them had no personal knowledge, acted outside the scope of official duty, or that there was fraud, mistake, or lack of trustworthiness in the method or source of information (e.g., Alcaraz v. Tangga-an).

  3. Limitations Where Officers Rely on Hearsay

    • Although the rule allows admission of official records, if the person preparing the record exclusively relied on out-of-court statements from persons not under a duty to report or not themselves reliable, the entry might lose its probative force. Courts look to the specific circumstances to gauge reliability.

  4. Comparisons with Other Hearsay Exceptions

    • Official entries differ from “business entries” (another hearsay exception) mainly because they are performed by a public officer in the performance of a legal mandate. Still, both revolve around the principle that routine and systematic recording fosters trustworthiness.

8. Practical Reminders for Litigants and Counsel

  1. Lay Proper Foundation

    • When offering an official record into evidence, explicitly state the legal basis (Rule 130, Sec. 49) and show compliance with the foundational elements: (a) official duty to record; (b) authenticity of the document; and (c) the document’s relevance.

  2. Obtain Certified Copies

    • Original documents from government offices may be difficult or impossible to bring in. Certified copies from the official custodian are acceptable if properly attested.

  3. Be Prepared for Rebuttal

    • If you are introducing an official record, anticipate attacks on its reliability—be sure the record is free of red flags like suspicious alterations, incomplete data, or circumstances showing possible tampering.

  4. Challenge Unreliable Records

    • Conversely, if faced with an official record that seems dubious, investigate how it was prepared, by whom, and under what conditions. Raise timely objections and counter-evidence to challenge its trustworthiness.

9. Relationship with Other Exceptions and Rules

  1. Business Entries vs. Official Records

    • Business entries (Rule 130, Sec. 48 of the 2019 Rules) pertain to records of regularly conducted business activity in private or commercial contexts, while entries in official records involve public officers or those performing a legal duty. Both are hearsay exceptions but rest on slightly different justifications.

  2. Public Documents

    • Under Rule 132 on the manner of presenting public documents, entries in official records are frequently public documents. They must still be authenticated under the rules (Sections 19–25 of Rule 132, as relevant).

  3. Presumptions

    • The “presumption of regularity” (Rule 131, Section 3(m)) often overlaps with this hearsay exception. Together, they strengthen the probative weight of official records, so long as the entry is relevant and pertains to a matter within the officer’s official function.

10. Summary

“Entries in official records” is a distinct, well-settled exception to the hearsay rule under Philippine remedial law. Rooted in the principle that public officers act with a presumption of regularity and under legal mandates, these records are deemed prima facie evidence of the facts they contain. To invoke this exception:

  • Confirm that the record is made by a public officer or a person specifically mandated by law,
  • In the performance of a duty to record specified facts,
  • At or near the time the events took place,
  • Under circumstances indicating trustworthiness.

Their admission in evidence does not render them conclusive; rather, they remain open to rebuttal. Proper authentication procedures—especially with foreign documents—must be observed. Ultimately, this exception streamlines the proof of facts regularly documented by government agencies, reflecting both convenience and reliability in court proceedings.

Key Takeaway:
When properly authenticated and shown to be made in the regular performance of duty, entries in official records enjoy a strong presumption of reliability, saving litigants the time and expense of producing the recording officer as a live witness. However, they remain subject to counter-proof, underscoring the importance of thorough legal preparation on both sides.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login