Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 479 views

    XXX vs. People p1

    Uploaded by

    Phulagyn Cañedo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the wife YYY's statements about what her daughter told her regarding the petitioner's marital infidelity are admissible as evidence. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, conversations communicated to a witness by a third party can be admitted to prove that the statements were made, regardless of their truth. YYY's statements fall under this exception because she was establishing what her daughter told her, not asserting the truth of the statements. Therefore, the hearsay rule does not apply and YYY's statements can be considered as evidence against the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    XXX vs. People p1

    Uploaded by

    Phulagyn Cañedo
    479 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the wife YYY's statements about what her daughter told her regarding the petitioner's marital infidelity are admissible as evidence. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, conversations communicated to a witness by a third party can be admitted to prove that the statements were made, regardless of their truth. YYY's statements fall under this exception because she was establishing what her daughter told her, not asserting the truth of the statements. Therefore, the hearsay rule does not apply and YYY's statements can be considered as evidence against the petitioner.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the wife YYY's statements about what her daughter told her regarding the petitioner's marital infidelity are admissible as evidence. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, conversations communicated to a witness by a third party can be admitted to prove that the statements were made, regardless of their truth. YYY's statements fall under this exception because she was establishing what her daughter told her, not asserting the truth of the statements. Therefore, the hearsay rule does not apply and YYY's statements can be considered as evidence against the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    479 views2 pages

    XXX vs. People p1

    Uploaded by

    Phulagyn Cañedo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the wife YYY's statements about what her daughter told her regarding the petitioner's marital infidelity are admissible as evidence. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, conversations communicated to a witness by a third party can be admitted to prove that the statements were made, regardless of their truth. YYY's statements fall under this exception because she was establishing what her daughter told her, not asserting the truth of the statements. Therefore, the hearsay rule does not apply and YYY's statements can be considered as evidence against the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Subject: Evidence

    Doctrine: The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations


    communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless
    of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Accordingly, the hearsay rule does not
    apply, and hence, the statements are admissible as evidence.
    Topic: Doctrine on Independently Relevant Statements
    Digester: Cañedo, PL.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    GR. No. 241390, January 13, 2021
    XXX vs. People

    DELOS SANTOS, J.:

    Facts:
    1. An Information was filed against XXX for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence
    Against Women and their Children Act.
    2. Private complainant YYY is the legal wife of petitioner. Sometime in October 2010, petitioner
    started a fight with YYY, as it is his usual habit when he is intoxicated. Petitioner drove YYY and
    her four children, AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD, out of the house and claimed the he alone owned the
    house.
    3. YYY, along with her daughters, fled to her parent's house. However, the spouses' eldest child, EEE,
    convinced his three sisters to return to their house so their father will be forced to support them,
    leaving CCC with their mother.
    4. Later on, YYY's daughters, particularly AAA, reported to her through text messages that
    petitioner was always drunk and even brought them to a videoke bar and introduced one Pearl
    Manto as their aunt. She thereafter learned from her daughter that the same woman was already
    eating lunch for two months in their house and ultimately lived with them.
    5. Both the RTC and CA found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
    6. Petitioner now posits that the RTC and CA decisions were based on hearsay evidence
    a. the presence of psychological violence has not been duly proven beyond reasonable
    doubt by the prosecution.
    b. that the wife YYY could not have suffered psychological violence since she did not have
    personal knowledge of the existence of the crime or of his alleged marital infidelity. YYY
    only came to know of his alleged marital infidelity through their daughter AAA, who sent
    text messages to her mother regarding his father's mistress.

    Issue:
    Whether or not YYY’s statements are admissible as evidence

    Ruling:
    Yes, YYY’s statements are admissible as evidence against XXX.

    Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements
    were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The doctrine on independently
    relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be
    admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the
    making of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b)
    is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact. Accordingly, the hearsay rule does not apply,
    and hence, the statements are admissible as evidence.

    In this case, YYY indeed did not have personal knowledge of the marital infidelity of petitioner.
    YYY's statement may be considered an independently relevant statement, an exception to the hearsay
    rule, the purpose of which is to merely establish that a statement was made. YYY was only testifying that
    she and her children were driven out of their home and thereafter she learned through her daughter AAA
    that her husband, petitioner, is having an affair with Pearl, who eventually lived with her husband and
    their children in their conjugal home.

    FULL TEXT AHEAD

    You might also like