This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent attended Napoles' parties and was photographed with Senator Estrada and Napoles.[11] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, Dr. Sanchez's testimony cannot be relied upon since she testified on the findings and conclusions of persons who were never presented in court. Ergo, her testimony thereon was hearsay. A witness can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge. Testimonial or documentary evidence is hearsay if it is based, not on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. Consequently, hearsay evidence -- whether objected to or not -- has no probative value.[94] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As to the letter of Joyohoy, wherein he narrated the participation of Ronald and Cesario, considering that he did not testify on the contents thereof, the same is hearsay. An unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value. It must be rejected because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party the opportunity to question its contents. The petitioner's failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and of no probative value.[29] | |||||