JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs.

ANIANO DESIERTO, in his

capacity as Ombudsman, RAMON GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS
AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES
FOUNDATION, INC., LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS FUNA, ROMEO
CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., respondents.
G.R. No. 146738. April 3, 2001.

FACTS:

On October 2000, allegations of wrong doings involving bribe-taking,

illegal gambling, and other forms of corruption were made against
Estrada before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On November 13,
2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor and, on December 7,
impeachment proceedings were begun in the Senate during which
more serious allegations of graft and corruption against Estrada were
made and were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators,
sympathetic to the President, succeeded in suppressing damaging
evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was
thrown into an uproar as the entire prosecution panel walked out and
Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against
Estrada.

On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for Estrada
and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called for a snap
presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and
local elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will not run in this
election. On January 20, SC declared that the seat of presidency was
vacant, saying that Estrada constructively resigned his post. At noon,
Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as
the 14th President. Estrada and his family later left Malacaang Palace.
Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. It
sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any
further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as
president ends. He also prayed for judgment confirming Estrada to be
the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines
temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Hearsay Evidence as newspaper articles may be

admitted as evidence.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court used the totality test to arrive at the
conclusion that the former President has resigned, and the reference
by the Court to certain newspapers reporting the events as they
happened does not make them inadmissible evidence for being
hearsay as the merely buttressed known facts to the court.Petitioner
insists he is the victim of prejudicial publicity. Among others, he assails
the Decision for adverting to newspaper accounts of the events and
occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has resigned. In our
Decision, we used the totality test to arrive at the conclusion that
petitioner has resigned. We referred to and analyzed events that were
prior, contemporaneous and posterior to the oath-taking of respondent
Arroyo as president. All these events are facts which are well-
established and cannot be refuted. Thus, we adverted to prior events
that built up the irresistable pressure for the petitioner to resign, x x x
All these prior events are facts which are within judicial notice by this
Court. There was no need to cite their news accounts. The reference by
the Court to certain newspapers reporting them as they happened
does not make them inadmissible evidence for being hearsay. The
news account only buttressed these facts as facts. For all his loud
protestations, petitioner has not singled out any of these facts as false.