Is Mendoza’s Testimony Hearsay?

Sen. Miriam Santiago was in the news today for again coming to the aid of an upopular President.  She’s razor sharp and articulate (in her own inimitable way). To her critics (and those of the President’s), the clarity she brings to a legal situation must be a source of frustration.  You don’t agree with her but damn it, she’s right!

This latest episode involving Capt. Carlo Mendoza’s testimony against Commr.  Garcillano falls in that category.  The Inquirer reports:

Santiago managed to elicit an admission from Mendoza that he had no personal knowledge of cheating in the 2004 election and that his testimony was based primarily on what he had heard Garcillano say when he served as the latter’s chief security officer from April to June last year.

This prompted another Arroyo-defender and lawyer, Sec. Bunye to comment:

Bunye also told reporters that “many people [were] fed up with the continued presentation of witnesses who merely give hearsay testimonies.”

But is that statement really true or just half-true?

Any law student will tell you that hearsay testimony consists of out-of-court statements submitted as proof of their own assertions.  (”Huh?”)  Let’s cut that up, shall we?

First, “out-of-court statements”  means that the witness is testifying that he heard someone else make a statement and that statement was not made within the courtroom.  For example,  Mr. Witness says: “Yes, sir. Mr. So-and-So told me: ‘I live in that house beside the cemetery.’” 

Second, “submitted as proof of their own assertions”  means that the statement is being used to prove what it says.  Let’s use the example above.  In order for the statement to be hearsay, it should be offered to prove that Mr. So-and-So lives in the house beside the cemetery.

Therefore, “out-of-court statements” become hearsay depending upon the purpose for which they are submitted.  If these statements are submitted, say, by a psychologist to prove that Mr. So-and-so is not insane (that is, he knows where he lives), then it’s not hearsay.  It all depends on context.

On top of that there are recognized exceptions to the Hearsay Rule.  Here’s where you grab a lawyer and ask him to recite them to you.  Make sure you ask what res gestae means and complain that lawyers do this on purpose to confuse everyone else into believing that the truth can only lie within the confines of admissible evidence.  “Excuse me,  Atty.  Lawyer,  I didn’t have to go through 4 years of law school to know that’s just not true.”

I digress.

After your lawyer answers, ask him if he’s missed anything from the list.  If he’s got a copy of the Rules of Court handy, let him look at it.  I’ll bet he’s missed one exception.  It’s easy to miss because it’s not mentioned as an exception.  So, this is where you can teach your lawyer something.  Tell him an admission is an exception to the hearsay rule.   Then sit back and watch him stare out into space to figure out what you just said. 

What’s an “admission”?  The Rules define it as an prejudicial “act, declaration or ommission” made by a party to a suit.  This means that any “declaration” so long as it’s made by a party to the suit can be admitted even if the “declaration” is established by a third-party witness.

In the case of Capt. Mendoza, therefore, his testimony is hearsay if it’s used to prove that Mr. Pineda made certain contributions to the President’s campaign fund.  That’s proof of it’s own assertion.  But it can be admissible if used in another context, say, to prove that Garcillano was aware of substantial campaign contributions made by private individuals to the President’s party.   Moreover, it’s entirely admissible against Garcillano in a suit where he is a party (like a criminal proceeding). 

In any case, I’ve always believed that lawyers are effective roadblocks.  As high priests of a religion inaccessible to many Filipinos, lawyers can say just about anything legal (right or wrong) and they’ll be taken as gospel truth.  In this case, the information is a half-truth — perhaps a case of looking at the glass as half-empty.