Está en la página 1de 4

Topic: Evidence: Judicial Notice; Hearsay; Best Evidence Rule; Authenticity of private document; Newspaper account admissibility; Secondary

Evidence Rule Title: Estrada v. Disierto 356 SCRA 108, G.R. Nos. 146710-15 April 3, 2001 PUNO J. Subtopic: Judicial Notice And Hearsay Fact: Newspaper accounts of the events reach the conclusion that President Estrada has resigned. The petitioner does not negate all those events. Issue: Is the newspaper accounts inadmissible? Ruling: No. Analysis: All those 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.

Subtopic: Hearsay & non hearsay purpose; state of mind Facts: Executive Secretary Angaras diary published in the Philippine daily inquirer stated that the Presidents proposal for a snap presidential election where he would not be a candidate; his statement that he only wanted the five-day period promised by his Chief of Staff; Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit; he could never leave the country; Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of dignified exit or resignation; Angara headed his team of negotiators that met with the team of the Vice President Arroyo. The statement was made during the manifestation of the Armed forces withdrawal of support from the President. Issue: Is the Angaras diary hearsay evidence? Ruling: No Analysis: A more circumspect examination of our rules of exclusion will show that they do not cover admissions of a party and the Angara Diary belongs to this class. Section 26 of Rule 130 provides that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

The Angara Diary contains statements of the petitioner which reflect his state of mind and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. It also contains statements of Secretary Angara from which we can reasonably deduce petitioners intent to resign. They are admissible and they are not covered by the rule on hearsay.

Subtopic: Adoptive Admission Facts: the same as above Issue: Is the diary binding to the President even though he is not the owner of it? Ruling: Yes Analysis: An adoptive admission is a partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. In the Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him as President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of dignified exit or resignation. Petitioner did not object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. Petitioners silence on this and other related suggestions can be taken as an admission by him.

Subtopic: Res In ter Alios Acta rule Facts: Same as above Issue: Is the Res In ter Alios Acta rule applicable? Ruling: No Analysis: The res inter alios acta rule has several exceptions. One of them is provided in section 29 of Rule 130 with respect to admissions by a co-partner or agent. Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego of the petitioner. The Diary shows that petitioner was always briefed by Secretary Angara on the progress of their negotiations. Consequently,petitioner is bound by the acts and declarations of Angara.

Subtopic: Newspaper account admissibility Facts: Same as above in addition of citing the case of State prosecutors v. Muro where Judge Muro was dismissed from the service for relying on a newspaper account in dismissing 11 cases against Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos without affording the prosecution the basic opportunity to be heard on the matter by way of a written comment or on oral argument. In the present case, both parties were asked to submit their memorandum. Issue: Is the jurisprudence applicable to prove that the Angaras diary is inadmissible? Ruling: No Analysis: In the instant cases, however, the petitioner had an opportunity to object to the admissibility of the Angara Diary. He was therefore not denied due process.

Subtopic: Authentication of private document Facts: Same as above Issue: Should the Angaras diary be properly authenticated? Ruling: No Analysis: A party who does not deny the genuineness of a proffered instrument may not object that it was not properly identified before it was admitted in evidence.

Subtopic: Best Evidence Rule & Secondary Evidence Rule Facts: On motion for reconsideration, the petitioner object for the admission of Angaras diary presented as a newspaper account on the ground of the best evidence rule Issue: Is the Best Evidence Rule Applicable? Ruling: No Analysis: Secondary evidence of the content of the writing will be received in evidence if no objection is made to its reception.