G.R. No.

191015

August 6, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner,

vs.
JOSE C. GO, AIDA C. DELA ROSA, and FELECITAS D. NECOMEDES,** Respondents.
Demurrer to the evidence40 is "an objection by one of the parties in an action,
to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in
point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The
party demurring challenges the sufficiencyof the whole evidence to sustain a ver
dict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a dem
urrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient
evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. x x x Suffi
cient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence i
n character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official a
ction demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient there
fore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the prec
ise degree of participation therein by the accused."41 Thus, when the accused fi
les a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is suff
icient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.4
2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus -

MARY LOU OMICTIN y SINGCO,

Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 188130
Present:
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.
Promulgated:
July 26, 2010
First, the testimony of Ambrosio cannot be considered as self-serving evidence.
The phrase self-serving evidence is a concept which has a well-defined judicial
meaning. Hernandez v. Court of Appeals[26] clarified what self-serving evidence
is and what it is not, thus:
The common objection known as self-serving is not correct because almost all tes
timonies are self-serving. The proper basis for objection is hearsay (Wenke, Mak
ing and Meeting Objections, 69).
Petitioner fails to take into account the distinction between self-serving state
ments and testimonies made in court. Self-serving statements are those made by a
party out of court advocating his own interest; they do not include a partys te
stimony as a witness in court (National Development Co. v. Workmens Compensation

Commission, 19 SCRA 861 [1967]).

Self-serving statements are inadmissible because the adverse party is not given
the opportunity for cross-examination, and their admission would encourage fabri
cation of testimony. This cannot be said of a partys testimony in court made und
er oath, with full opportunity on the part of the opposing party for cross-exami
nation.
This principle was reiterated in the more recent People v. Villarama,[27] where
the Court ruled, x x x [A] self-serving declaration is one that is made by a par
ty, out of court and in his favor. It does not include the testimony he gives as
a witness in court. Assayed against the foregoing standards, Ambrosios testimon
y is not self-serving and is admissible in evidence.