"x x x.
Curiously, the RTC excepted the entries in the ledgers from the application of the hearsay rule by also terselystating that the ledgers “were prepared in the regular course of business.”[40]Seemingly, the RTC applied Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 43. Entries in the course of business. – Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
This was another grave error of the RTC.The terse yet sweeping mannerof justifying the application of Section 43 was unacceptable due to the need to show the concurrence of the several requisites before entries in the course of business could be excepted from the hearsay rule. The requisites are as follows:
(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
(b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer;
(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral, or religious;
The Court has to acquit petitioner for failure of the State to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterates that in the trial of every criminal case, a judge must rigidly test the State’s evidence of guilt in order to ensure that such evidence adhered to the basic rules of admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of the crime charged upon such evidence. The failure of the judge to do so herein nullified the guarantee of due of process of law in favor of the accused, who had no obligation to prove her innocence. Heracquittal should follow.
x x x."
