“History is replete with the catastrophic consequences of gossip.”
Hearsay or rumors are talk or opinions widely disseminated with no discernable source (Webster Dictionary). Empires, kingdoms, governments, and even modern institutions have fallen due to war, economic strife, political misunderstandings, and even religious disagreements. The only thing common among the aforementioned methods, is that they were, in one way or another, fueled by hearsay or rumor.
Rumors, though baseless, spread like wildfire. These are constructed and disseminated to influence someone who is ignorant, gullible, undiscerning, or prejudiced. These are harmless accusations, most of the time, and more so for “wound[s that] can be assuaged by the balm of a clear conscience” (The United States v. Perfecto, G.R. No. 16924, March 23, 1922).
However, it cannot be denied that the subject of the rumor may suffer indignity, disrepute, and defamation. Sadly, spreading hearsay, rumor mongering and sharing “gossip” are enjoyable pastimes for most people, educated or not. This is also the reason why “a public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts” (United States v. Perfecto).
History is replete with the catastrophic consequences of gossip. Jesus Christ was not spared from gossip by the Pharisees who plotted to destroy him (Matthew 12:14). Anne Boleyn was rumored to have had an incestuous relationship with her brother, which, no doubt, contributed to the case against her, eventually led to her beheading. The Salem Witch Trials, which originated in Massachusetts, also featured rumor mongering of unfounded accusations of witchcraft among the original colonists, leading to the killing of many innocent women.
Rumors and hearsay also are a central theme in the Pulitzer prize-winning novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. Tom Robinson, a black man, was accused of raping a white woman. Rumors travelled fast in an already prejudiced fictional Southern town in the States, leading to his unlawful conviction, despite the fact that it was Ms. Ewell, the “victim,” that came on to him.
Powered by rumors and hasty imputations, Cicero banished an insurgent, Catiline, from Rome, without due process. Relying only on intelligence reports from his spies and informers, Cicero, in an impassioned speech that is a staple in oratorical contests, charged Cataline with treason and exiled him. This was Cicero’s finest hour, but by modern standards, was there evidence against his foe?
These and many more events in political and religious history were shaped by hearsay and rumors. This is one of the reasons why modern rules on evidence, including that of the Philippines, exclude hearsay evidence in our courts. As a general rule, only matters known to the witnesses, by their own personal knowledge and derived from their perception, can be admitted by the court; therefore, these witnesses will have to be presented in court.
However, despite the dissent against hearsay, Philippine courts still accept certain kinds of information derived from hearsay. These are known in the Rules on Evidence as the Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. The reader might quip: Why is hearsay evidence accepted by the court as valid, albeit in a few circumstances? It is because of the assumption that the source of the facts, or the custodian of the data, and additionally, its nature, are reliable and trustworthy.
A dying declaration is a statement made by a dying person to another who did not witness the circumstances leading to the declarant’s death. It is the recipient of the declaration who will testify in court (Section 38, Rule 130). While this is hearsay, it is given a certain level of reliability because a dying person is expected not to lie.
This dying declaration can be refuted by proof that the declarant was not dying when the declaration was made, or conversely, that the declarant or recipient of the declaration did not accurately perceive the facts. Similarly, a Declaration against Interest is made by a person who is deceased or is unable to testify (Section 40, Rule 130). This is trustworthy because human nature is generally self-preserving, advancing his own interest.
Acceptable hearsay may also come in the form of an Act or Declaration about Pedigree. This exception allows the recipient of the declaration, who presumably has knowledge of the acts of the deceased or person unable to testify, to attest to the relationship of the said person to another, by birth, marriage, or adoption. (Section 41, Rule 130).
Another form of accepted hearsay is rooted on reputation. Though the source or origin of the facts or information are not identifiable, the nature of the information makes it reliable and trustworthy. For instance, any member of the family may testify on who is related to them, by birth, marriage or adoption. This is known as Family reputation or Tradition as to Pedigree. Entries in family bibles, books or charts, engravings on rings, and family portraits may be received as evidence (Section 42, Rule 130).
Common Reputation is also an exception to the Hearsay Rule. In truth, this is categorically a rumor, but is accepted as reliable because it deals with the boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community and events pertaining to its general history. This may also be applicable to questions of marriage or moral character (Section 43, Rule 130). Examples include the following statements: “The shopping mall is the location of the old railroad station,” or “Fort San Felipe in Cavite is one of the oldest military ports in the Philippines.”
Res Gestae is the act of blurting out a statement because you were startled or under the stress of excitement (Section 44, Rule 130). The reason for accepting this hearsay is that the person from whom this statement originates has no opportunity to fabricate or contemplate on the statement, because of the spontaneity of the circumstances. It is hearsay because the person who will testify is not the declarant but the person who heard the statement. Otherwise, if the declarant testifies regarding his own statement, it will not be hearsay.
There are entries or information in documents which are accepted in evidence even if the maker, author, or person who made the entries on the document will not testify. These are considered reliable and trustworthy because of the nature of the data, documents, and persons who supplied the information.
First, these include records of regularly conducted business activities. The custodian or any qualified person can testify (Section 45, Rule 130). Second, entries in official records are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein without the need for the public officer who made the entry to testify (Section 46, Rule 130). An example is a certified true copy of the original of the transfer certificate of title kept in the Registry of Deeds.
Third, periodicals, listings, or compilations, used by members of the profession or are relied upon by them, may be accepted without presenting the author or publisher as witness (Section 47, Rule 130). These include stock market listings for stock brokers, Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) for lawyers, and the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties (MIMs) for doctors. Fourth, the judge may take judicial notice of published treaties, periodicals, or pamphlets on the subjects of history, law, science, and the arts (Section 48, Rule 130).
The most recent amendment to the hearsay exception is residual exception. This is known as a catch-all for exceptions because acts, statements, and information not covered by the other exceptions may be admitted by the court if it is determined that: (a) the statement is evidence of a material fact; (b) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered; and (c) the purpose of the rules is honored, and justice, served. However, the proponent must notify the adverse party in advance in order for the latter to prepare to meet it (Section 50, Rule 130).
Hearsay or rumors may be entertaining to cultivate, but peddling them may destroy reputations and strain relationships, not to mention that the purveyors may be exposed to charges of slander, oral defamation, libel or cyber libel, if committed out of court, and false testimony or perjury, if committed in a court-related proceeding. Hence, people must always be circumspect and validate any fact used in or heard out of the courtroom.
