G.R. No. 241390 - XXX,*, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

Accordingly, the hearsay rule does not apply, and hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. [18] In this case, YYY indeed did not have personal knowledge of the marital infidelity of petitioner. YYY's statement may be considered an independently relevant statement, an exception to the hearsay rule, the purpose of which is to merely establish that a statement was made. YYY was only testifying that she and her children were driven out of their home and thereafter she learned through her daughter AAA that her husband, petitioner, is having an affair with Pearl, who eventually lived with her husband and their children in their conjugal home. An excerpt of YYY's testimony is hereby reproduced, thus: PROS. BARTOLOME TO WITNESS: Q Now, you mentioned that you were driven away by your husband? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q So, when you were driven away from your house along with your four children[,] where did you go? A To my parents in [x x x], sir. Q And, how about your four children, did they stay also during the same period? A On the night that I separated from my husband[,] one of my children [EEE] talked to my other three children to return to the house. x x x x Q And so, what [happened] after your three children returned to your residence at [x x x]? A Yes, they stayed with their father, however, my children reported to me that their father was always drunk and usually [goes] to the Videoke bar. Q And, what reason do they tell you of [these] stories that your husband is out at [night] drinking? A They went to the house of their Lola and even my daughter [sent] text messages to me informing me of the activity of my husband. Q Who among your children would report to you? A AAA, sir. Q Are there other matters which AAA would report to you regarding your husband? A Yes, sir, regarding the other woman whom he introduced. Q And were you able to know from your daughter AAA how this woman of your husband was introduced to them? A Yes sir. He introduced the woman because the woman was working in a Videoke bar. Q Are you trying to say that AAA would accompany her father to the videoke bar? A One time they dropped by together with the two other siblings corning from the market at the videoke bar. Q And, did you come to know of the name of this other woman? A Yes, sir. Q And what is her name? A Pearl Manto, sir. [19] It is clear that the making of such statements is circumstantially relevant to the case at bench and hence, may be considered in evidence against petitioner. Notably, YYY's statements were corroborated by her and petitioner's daughter, AAA, who testified as follows: PROS. CATOLICO TO WITNESS: Q Do you recall what they were fighting about? A Yes, ma'am. Q And, tell us please. A They were fighting over my father's womanizing, ma'am. Q And, what did you notice of your father when he was fighting with your mother? A He was drunk, ma'am. Q And, what other things happened during that night? A He drove us away from our home, ma'am. Q When you said "we",