Hearsay is an out-of-court statement which is offered for the truth of the fact asserted therein (see Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court). Under the hearsay rule, hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.
Basically, there are two ways to overcome a hearsay objection. The first is to argue that the hearsay statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.
The second is to argue that the statement objected to is in fact not hearsay. This can be done by either showing that the statement is an admission or that it is an independently relevant statement. Both statements are excluded from the definition of hearsay and, consequently, from the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court has held that an admission is excluded from the hearsay rule (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, 3 April 2001; see also Federal Rules of Evidence 801[d][2]).
An independently relevant statement is an out-of-court statement which is relevant not for the truth of a fact asserted therein but for something else, e.g., the declarant’s state of mind, or the legal significance of the statement. Otherwise put, the statement is relevant for something else other than its truth. Not being hearsay, an independently relevant statement is admissible in evidence over hearsay objection.
Embraced in the concept of independently relevant statements are those which are offered not to prove the truth of the fact asserted in the statement but to prove only “the fact that the statement was made,” or “the tenor of the statement,” or “the mere fact of its utterance.”
This type of independently relevant statements deserves elucidation. The statement itself must have probative value regardless of its truth. If the statement has no probative value if it was untrue, then the hearsay objection cannot be overcome simply by arguing that the statement is offered to prove only “the fact that the statement was made,” or “the tenor of the statement,” or “the mere fact of utterance.”
The following hypothetical, based on question no. 17(c) from the 1999 remedial law bar examination, illustrates the proper application of the rule regarding independently relevant statements offered to prove only the fact of their making:
W overheard B call X a thief. B later died. X filed an action for damages for defamation against the estate of B. X offers the testimony of W to prove the fact of utterance, i.e., that B called X a thief. Is the testimony of W hearsay?
The answer would be in the negative. Here, B’s statement calling X a thief is an independently relevant statement because its probative value for X lies in the fact that it is not true. The mere fact of utterance, even if untrue, produces the legal effect of defaming X and is thus relevant for the purpose of recovering damages against the estate of B.
Unfortunately, this subset of independently relevant statements has morphed into an outsized form which has become unhinged from its theoretical moorings and has taken a life of its own. The rubric has not infrequently been invoked to justify the admission of out-of-court statements even if their probative value depends solely on the truth of the statement. Sometimes, even courts and experts fail to grasp the nuance that a statement offered to prove only the fact of its making must still be independently relevant.
The second question in the 2024 remedial law bar examination reads as follows:
In a criminal case for homicide, the prosecution offered Austin as witness to prove that Titus admitted to him the killing of the victim. At the trial, Austin answered these questions from the public prosecutor:
Q: Did you witness the killing of the victim?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: What were you doing when the victim was killed?
A: I was sleeping, ma’am.
Q: Why are you testifying against Titus?
A: Because Titus admitted to me that he killed the victim.
Q: What did Titus tell you?
Immediately, Titus’ counsel objected to the question on the ground that the answer of Austin would be hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. If you are the judge, how will you rule on the objection? Explain.
A suggested answer by a panel of remedial law experts is that the hearsay objection should be sustained. This overlooks the rule that an admission is excluded from the hearsay rule and is thus admissible over hearsay objection. The statement of the accused Titus which is being offered in evidence against him is an admission (Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court).
The panel hedged its position by stating that it may be argued that Titus’ statement is an independently relevant statement which is admissible not to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to prove that such statement was made. Titus’ statement however cannot be characterized as an independently relevant statement. His statement that he killed the victim would have no probative value at all for the prosecution if it was untrue.
In short, Titus’ statement is admissible not because it is independently relevant but because it is an admission.
In People v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 260731, 13 February 2023, the accused was prosecuted for robbery with homicide. The prosecution witness Mark testified that the accused narrated to him how he (the accused) killed the victim and got the victim’s belongings. The Court of Appeals held that Mark’s testimony on the accused’s statement is admissible as an independently relevant statement.
The Court stated that it was wrong to characterize the accused’s statement as an independently relevant statement. The Court emphasized that a statement may be considered an independently relevant statement only when what is sought to be proven by its presentation is the fact that it was made, regardless of whether what was stated is in fact true. In this case, however, Mark’s testimony regarding the accused’s admission was offered precisely to establish the events of the victim’s death and the accused’s involvement therein. In short, it was offered as an assertion of the truth of the matters alleged therein. The Court held that the accused’s statement is admissible in evidence not as an independently relevant statement but as an admission.
Let us tweak the facts of the 2024 remedial law bar exam question. Let us say that Austin’s testimony would be to the effect that Deco told him that it was Titus who killed the victim. In this case, Deco’s statement would be hearsay. It would not be an admission because it was not made by the accused but by a third person. Again, the statement is not independently relevant because it would have no probative value if untrue. It should be denied admission even if offered to prove only the fact that the statement was made.
In fine, an out-of-court statement which has no independent relevance if untrue should not be admitted on the mere argument that it is offered only to prove the fact that the statement was made. To admit such a statement would be to run roughshod over the hearsay rule.
-oOo-
