Disclaimer: The following discussion is provided for general informational and educational purposes based on Philippine law (particularly the Rules of Court). It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal issues, please consult a qualified attorney.

OVERVIEW

Under the Philippine Rules on Evidence (Rule 130), testimony in court must be based on a witness’s personal knowledge. Testimonial evidence that merely repeats an out-of-court statement for the truth of the matter it asserts is generally excluded as hearsay, subject to certain recognized exceptions. A related (but distinct) concept is the requirement of firsthand knowledge: a witness must testify only to those facts which they have personal knowledge of, i.e., matters perceived by their own senses.

Understanding how hearsay differs from lack of firsthand knowledge is crucial to determining whether testimony is admissible in Philippine courts.

I. PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE VS. HEARSAY

A. Personal (Firsthand) Knowledge

Definition
- Personal knowledge exists when the witness perceived (through sight, hearing, smell, touch, or taste) the facts about which they testify.
- Under the Rules on Evidence, the witness must have actually observed or experienced the event or occurrence in order to competently testify on it.
Governing Provision
- Under the Revised Rules on Evidence (2019 Amendments), Rule 130, Section 40 provides:
  
  “A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these Rules.”
- In earlier versions of the Rules of Court (before the 2019 amendments), this principle was embodied in Rule 130, Section 36 with essentially the same import: “Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded.”
Rationale
- Testimony based on personal knowledge is considered more reliable because the witness can be cross-examined on what they themselves observed or experienced.
- A witness who lacks personal knowledge of a fact is incompetent to testify about it and can be excluded on this point by an objection for lack of personal knowledge or lack of competence.
Illustrative Example
- If Witness A personally saw the accused firing a gun at the victim, that is personal knowledge. A can testify that “I saw the accused fire the gun.”
- If Witness A merely heard from a friend, “The accused fired the gun,” but did not see it themselves, then A does not have personal knowledge of the event. Any attempt to testify on that matter for its truth would be hearsay.

B. Hearsay

Definition
- Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In the Philippines, the definition is found in Rule 130, Section 37 (2019 Amendments) (formerly Section 36 under older rules).
- The “statement” can be oral, written, or even non-verbal conduct intended as an assertion (e.g., pointing to identify a person if intended as a communicative assertion).
Governing Provision
- Rule 130, Section 37 (2019 Amendments) provides:
  
  “Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is (a) an oral or written assertion, or (b) nonverbal conduct of a person, who intends it as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.”
Core Elements of Hearsay
- Out-of-court statement: The statement was made outside the current trial or hearing.
- Offered to prove the truth: The proponent wants the fact-finder to believe the content of the statement as true.
- Not subject to cross-examination when made: Because the statement was made out of court, the declarant is not testifying at that moment under oath, and opposing counsel cannot cross-examine them about that statement.
Distinguishing from “Lack of Firsthand Knowledge”
- A person who lacks personal knowledge but testifies anyway is incompetent to do so because they did not observe the fact themselves.
- Hearsay arises specifically when a witness repeats someone else’s statement (the “declarant”) to prove the content of that statement.
- In practice, testimony without firsthand knowledge often is hearsay—but not all lack of personal knowledge automatically involves hearsay. For instance, a witness might guess or speculate about something without referencing an out-of-court statement. That guess or speculation can be objected to for lack of personal knowledge, but it is not exactly hearsay (because there is no out-of-court statement being repeated).
- Conversely, a witness may have personal knowledge of the fact that a statement was made (they personally heard someone utter the words), but if they offer that statement to prove the truth of what it said, it is hearsay.
- The focus with hearsay is whether the content of the out-of-court statement is being used for the truth it asserts. Meanwhile, the focus with personal knowledge is whether the witness actually perceived the event or condition about which they are testifying.
Illustrative Example
- Hearsay (Out-of-Court Statement for the Truth):
  Witness B testifies, “My friend told me that the defendant stole the motorcycle.” If offered to prove “the defendant stole the motorcycle,” that is hearsay because B is merely repeating an out-of-court statement.
- Not Hearsay (If Not for Truth):
  Witness C testifies, “I heard a man shout ‘Fire!’” to show the effect on C (e.g., that C ran away). If the statement is not introduced to prove that there was indeed a fire, but merely to explain the witness’s subsequent action or the statement’s effect on the witness, it is generally not hearsay.
- Lack of Firsthand Knowledge:
  Witness D testifies, “I think the defendant must have stolen the motorcycle because I saw him in the vicinity hours before.” D did not actually see the theft, so this is incompetent speculation, objectable on the ground of lack of personal knowledge. It is not hearsay unless D is also repeating someone else’s out-of-court statement to prove the theft.

II. HEARSAY RULE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS

Although the topic centers on “Hearsay distinguished from lack of firsthand knowledge,” it is important to be aware that, under Philippine law, many exceptions can allow hearsay statements into evidence if certain requisites are met (e.g., dying declaration, res gestae, declaration against interest, family reputation, pedigree, official records, business records, etc.). While these exceptions go beyond the immediate scope, they matter because they underscore that some hearsay is admissible when it satisfies particular conditions ensuring trustworthiness.

Key provisions in the Revised Rules on Evidence (2019) enumerate these exceptions under Rule 130, Sections 39 to 57 (depending on the specific exception). The old numbering (pre-2019) placed them under Sections 37 to 47. Notable exceptions:

Dying Declaration
Statement of Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind
Declaration Against Interest
Res Gestae (Spontaneous Statement and Verbal Act)
Regular Entries in the Course of Business
Official Records
Records of a Court of Record
Testimony at a Former Trial
Family Reputation or Pedigree
Common Reputation
Part of the Res Gestae (expanded discussion)

However, none of these exceptions dispense with the fundamental requirement of personal knowledge if a witness is testifying to something they themselves claim to have observed. The exceptions only apply to the out-of-court declarant’s statement, allowing it to be admitted if it falls under one of the recognized circumstances of reliability.

III. JURISPRUDENCE HIGHLIGHTS

Philippine Supreme Court decisions have continually emphasized two main points:

Testimony Without Personal Knowledge Is Inadmissible
- People v. Labarias, G.R. No. 194447, September 11, 2013, reiterates that a witness must “testify only on facts within his personal knowledge,” and secondhand information is inadmissible.
Hearsay Must Fall Under Recognized Exceptions to be Admissible
- People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 238392, October 2, 2019, explains that hearsay evidence has “no probative value unless it fits under any of the recognized exceptions.”
Distinguishing Hearsay from Evidence of “Knowledge of the Fact That a Statement Was Made”
- Courts allow testimony to establish that a particular statement was uttered (to show effect on the hearer or to show notice or motive) rather than to prove the truth of the statement. This nuance often appears in rulings that clarify why some statements are not hearsay because they are offered for a purpose other than proving the truth (e.g., People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 228193, July 23, 2018).

IV. PRACTICAL POINTS IN LITIGATION

Objections
- Counsel must promptly object to hearsay or to testimony that shows lack of personal knowledge. Failing to object in time can result in a waiver of the objection.
- A common objection wording is: “Objection, Your Honor. The witness has no personal knowledge of that fact.” or “Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.”
Foundational Questions
- To establish personal knowledge, counsel typically asks the witness foundation questions like “Did you see it?”, “Where were you?”, “How did you come to know this fact?”
- If a witness answers, “I only heard about it from my neighbor,” the examining lawyer must realize that any further mention of that neighbor’s account is likely hearsay.
Cross-Examination
- Opposing counsel should carefully cross-examine to expose whether the witness truly has personal knowledge or is merely repeating another’s statement.
- If it is found that the witness did not witness the event, that portion of testimony may be stricken out or disregarded as hearsay or incompetent.
Offering the Statement for Non-Truth Purposes
- An astute litigator may salvage an out-of-court statement by clarifying that it is not offered for the truth but for another valid, relevant purpose (e.g., to explain the witness’s next action). This shifts the statement from hearsay to non-hearsay, provided the judge deems the purpose legitimate and not a mere pretext.

V. KEY TAKEAWAYS

Personal knowledge is an overarching requirement for admissibility of testimonial evidence. A witness must have observed or experienced the event about which they testify.
Hearsay specifically refers to an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. It is excluded unless it falls under an exception.
Distinction:
- Lack of firsthand knowledge → The witness is incompetent to testify about something they did not perceive themselves.
- Hearsay → Even if a witness perceived someone else’s statement (so they have personal knowledge of the statement’s occurrence), the content of that statement is inadmissible for its truth unless it falls under a recognized exception.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule provide limited gateways for otherwise inadmissible statements. Always check if the offered statement can be categorized under any enumerated exception.
Objections and proper litigation technique ensure that only competent, relevant, and reliable evidence is presented and admitted.

In Sum

Lack of firsthand knowledge disqualifies a witness from testifying to certain facts because they did not personally perceive them.
Hearsay addresses out-of-court statements repeated in court to prove their truth, rendering them inadmissible unless they qualify under recognized exceptions.

These twin doctrines help ensure reliability and trustworthiness in Philippine judicial proceedings, preventing mere rumors or secondhand accounts from being used to establish facts in court. They are cornerstone principles in the law on evidence under Rule 130 of the Philippine Rules of Court.