Dear PAO,
What is the legal standard for admitting a person’s dying declaration as evidence in our jurisdiction?
Nel
Dear Nel,
Section 3, Rule 128 of the Philippine Revised Rules on Evidence, A.M. 19-08-15-SC, which became effective on May 1, 2020, states that an “[e]vidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules.” By this pronouncement, our laws provide certain rules, conditions, and qualifications intended to ensure due process and to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings in our jurisdiction.
Among the types of evidence that may be used to ascertain the truth of the factual allegations in judicial proceedings is testimonial evidence. Generally, in order to be admissible as evidence, the testimony of a person testifying must be confined to his/her personal knowledge — that he/she “can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.” (Section 22, Rule 130, A.M. 19-08-15-SC) For this reason, our laws bar the admission of statements other than that made by the declarant in open court, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. These statements are called “hearsay,” which is usually devoid of probative value and is generally inadmissible as evidence as it deprives the other party of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant as to the very statements offered as evidence.
However, like most rules, there are exceptions, one of which is a report in open court of a dying person’s declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case. This is more commonly known as dying declaration, which is governed by Section 37 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, reproduced as follows:
“Sec. 37. Dying Declaration - The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.”
The admissibility of a dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule is grounded upon necessity and trustworthiness. It is necessary because the death of the declarant renders it impossible for him/her to take the witness stand. Because of this, the declaration may be allowed to prevent a failure of justice. And because the declaration is deemed made in extremity, “as when the party is at the point of death and every hope of this world is gone, when every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth,” the statement made is deemed trustworthy. (People of the Philippines v. Rolando Mendoza y Carpio, GR 142654, Nov. 16, 2001, Ponente: Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban)
In People of the Philippines v. Rolando Mendoza y Carpio, GR 142654, Nov. 16, 2001, the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, enumerated the requisites before a dying declaration may be admitted as evidence, viz: “1) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact; 2) That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death; 3) That the declaration relates to a fact which the victim is competent to testify to; and (4) that the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry.”
It is only after the foregoing requisites have been satisfied and the fact thereof has been established that the statement may be accorded the utmost credence by the courts. After all, as repeatedly held by the Supreme Court, no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. (People of the Philippines v. Jay Mandy Maglian y Reyes, GR 189834, March 30, 2011, Ponente: Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr.)
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net