Cases (declaration Against Interest) Flashcards
Accused was charged with Kidnapping Openda, Jr. During trial, the prosecution, in order to prove that accused has a motive in perpetrating the alleged crime, presented Enriquez, a common friend of both the accused and the victim, as witness. Enriquez testified that Openda, Jr. confided to him that the latter is having an affair with accused’s wife. The trial court, giving credence to Enriquez’s testimony as well as testimony of other witnesses attesting to the circumstances prior to the alleged abduction, convicted the accused. Accused assailing the decision of the trial court and for admitting the testimony of Enriquez.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony made by a witness as to a statement made a deceased person that is against the interest of the latter may be admissible in evidence as against a third person.
HELD: Openda, Jr.’s revelation to Enriquez regarding his illicit relationship with Bernal’s wife is admissible in evidence, pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, viz.: “Sec. 38. Declaration against interest. — The 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.” A statement may be admissible when it complies with the following requisites, to wit:” (1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant; (3) that at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and (4) that the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true. Openda, Jr., having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called upon to testify. His confession to Enriquez, definitely a declaration against his own interest, since his affair with Naty Bernal was a crime, is admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.
