April 8, 2019

1:15:01 – 1:25:44

…that indeed Mr. Go is indebted to Ms. Perez for 1Million. Is the testimony of Mr. Siao admissible? Is it hearsay?
It is hearsay because Mr. Siao has no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of Mr. Go’s declaration that he is indeed
indebted to Ms. Perez, what Mr. Siao can testify about is the fact that on such and such a date, and on such and such a place,
he had this conversation with Mr. Go where Mr. Go admitted owing to Ms. Perez 1 million. But not as to the truth of the
existence of the obligation. It’s hearsay!

2nd situation: Same case, Mr. Go is sued by Ms. Perez for 1 million. During the pendency of the case, Mr. Siao has a meeting
with Ms. Dy, another cousin of Mr. Go. In that meeting, Ms. Dy told Mr. Siao that she was present when Mr. Go obtained
money from Ms. Perez and that she is aware that despite repeated demands from Ms. Perez, Mr. Go still fails to pay. During the
trial, Ms. Perez called Mr. Siao as a witness to testify that on such and such a date, and on such and such a place, Ms. Dy
confided to him that she’s aware that Mr. Go is indebted to Ms. Perez for 1 million. Is the testimony of Mr. Siao hearsay?
It is hearsay, because he has no personal knowledge as to the truth of the statement of Ms. Dy that indeed Mr. Go is indebted
to Ms. Perez.

Is the testimony of Mr. Siao in the first situation admissible? Yes.

In the second situation? Inadmissible.

Both are hearsay, but one is admissible and the other is not. What’s the difference? The first is a declaration against interest
covered by Section 26, Rule 130, the second is covered by the rule on hearsay. Section 26 says that the act, declaration or
omission of a party as to any relevant matter may be received in evidence against him. Under Section 26, the declarant is not
the one in the witness stand, because Section 26 speaks of extra-judicial admission, as opposed to judicial admission. The
admission is made outside of court but the witness is not the admitter, otherwise it would have been judicial. The one in court
is the person who heard the admission made by a party. In our example in the first situation, Mr. Siao is the witness who
testified on the statement that he heard from a party, Mr. Go. Under Section 26, the testimony of Mr. Siao, as to the
declaration of Mr. Go, is admissible against Mr. Go, the declarant. This is called an admission against interest.

Take note: Not all admissions are covered under Section 26. Only admissions which are adverse to the interest of the declarant
are covered. So self-serving admissions are not covered. If the declaration of Mr. Go during their meeting with Mr. Siao is that
he does not owe a thing to Ms. Perez, then that is not the one contemplated under Section 26, because that is not against the
interest of Mr. Go. It is favorable to Mr. Go and that’s not the one covered by Section 26.
The word employed by Section 26 is “against” him when it says “may be given in evidence AGAINST him.”. It’s not “for or
against” him, but only against him. Meaning it should be adverse to the interest of the declarant, so it contemplates of an extra-
judicial admission that is against the interest of the declarant.

Why is this admissible, when in fact it is hearsay? Section 26 should be understood in relation to Hearsay Evidence Rule. There’s
a rule that says a witness shall only testify on facts which are known by him based on his personal knowledge. Mr. Siao has no
personal knowledge of the truth or falsity of Mr. Go’s declaration, but this is admissible. The reasons are two-fold:
1. By express provision of Section 26, declaration against interest is admissible against the declarant even if hearsay. It is
considered by the rules as inherently reliable, because of its nature being adverse to the interest of the declarant. The
presumption in law is that a person who makes a declaration against his own interest must be telling the truth,
because humans love themselves, we take good care of ourselves – self-preservation. We lie to benefit us, we do not
lie to hurt us. That’s the universal rule of human nature. So when one blurts out something that hurts himself, he
must be telling the truth. That is what makes it reliable.
2. Cross-examination is legally impossible, as the information comes from the party himself.