8. Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No.

152364, April 15, 2010

FACTS: Basilisa and her siblings (Lazaro et.al) inherited a parcel of land
from their deceases father. The siblings agreed that land be registered in
the name of Basilica alone. After Basilica died, the land was transferred to
the name of her children (Agustin). The Lazaros filed for the partition of
the land. Agustins’ contention: That the subject land is owned exclusively
by them, as heirs of late Basilisa. Lazaros’ contention: During the lifetime
of Basilisa, she executed a sworn statement recognizing her siblings’ share
in the subject land. The sworn statement is declaration against interest.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sworn statement was a declaration against

interest. NO.

RULING: Admissions against interest are those made by a party to litigation

or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and
are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as witness.
Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither a
party or in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and
constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible only when
the declarant is unavailable as a witness. In the present case, since Basilisa
is respondents’ predecessor-in-interest and is, thus, in privity with the
latter’s legal interest, the former’s sworn statement, if proven genuine and
duly executed, should be considered as an admission against interest.

9. Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111692 February 9, 1996

FACTS: At the benefit dance at Dump Site, Tudela, Trento, Agusan del Sur,
Alejandro Fuentes Jr. stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting
knife. The stabbing incident was witnessed by Alberto Toling and Honorio
Osok. Alejandro Fuentes Jr. claims on the other hand that it was his cousin
Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., alias “Jonie” who knifed Malaspina. Petitioner points to
an alleged inconsistency between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
Alberto Toling and Honorio Osok to the effect that they saw petitioner stab
Malaspina on the right lumbar region, and the testimony of the attending
physician that the victim was stabbed on the left lumbar region.
The RTC found Fuentes guilty of murder. The CA affirmed such decision
hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the particularly against penal interest attributed to

Zoilo Fuentes, Jr. is admissible in evidence. NO.

RULING: One of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is that

pertaining to declarations made against interest. Sec. 38 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court provides that “(t)he declaration made by a person deceased,
or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to
declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not
have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and
against third persons.” The admissibility in evidence of such declaration is
grounded on necessity and trustworthiness.

There are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a declaration
against interest: (a) the declarant must not be available to testify; (b) the
declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the declarant; and (c) the
circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed.

The admission against penal interest cannot be accepted in the instant

case as the declarant is not “unable to testify.” But more importantly, the
far weightier reason why the admission against penal interest cannot be
accepted in the instant case is that the declarant is not “unable to testify.”
There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead, mentally incapacitated or
physically incompetent which Sec. 38 obviously contemplates. His mere
absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable
under this rule. For it is incumbent upon the defense to produce each and
every piece of evidence that can break the prosecution and assure the
acquittal of the accused. Other than the gratuitous statements of accused-
appellant and his uncle to the effect that Zoilo admitted having killed
Malaspina, the records show that the defense did not exert any serious
effort to produce Zoilo as a witness. Lest we be misunderstood, the Court
is always for the admission of evidence that would let an innocent
declaration of guilt by the real culprit. But this can be open to abuse, as
when the extrajudicial statement is not even authenticated thus increasing
the probability of its fabrication; it is made to persons who have every
reason to lie and falsify; and it is not altogether clear that the declarant
himself is unable to testify.

12. a. Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 19, 2010

FACTS: Lopez filed a Complaint for Recognition and Support against

Nepomuceno, alleging that she is the illegitimate child of Nepomuceno
through an extra-marital affair with her
mother, Araceli. Lopez presented a hand written note made by
Nepomuceno himself wherein Nepomuceno stated that he will provide
financial monthly support in favor of Lopez and nothing more.

ISSUE: Whether or not the handwritten note may be received in evidence

to prove Lopez’s filiation with Nepomuceno. NO.

RULING: The Supreme Court discussed Sections 39 and 40 (now Sections

41 and 42) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, “an act or declaration may be
received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration.

In this case, the handwritten note does not even contain any statement
whatsoever about Lopez’s filiation with Nepomuceno. It is merely a
statement of financial support. In this case, it is not a competent evidence
of legitimate filiation wherein admission of filiation in a private handwritten
instrument signed by the parent concerned. Here, the note was not even
notarized and there was no admission of filiation in favor of Lopez in this
case. Moreover, it was consistently denied by Nepomuceno. Although there
was another document presented – the certificate of birth; however, it is
not given probative value because it was not even signed by Nepomuceno.
All in all, it is only a handwritten undertaking to provide financial support
and does not establish claim of filiation by Lopez