Evidence Digest: THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRICA, et al vs. CALTEX (PHIL.), INC. (1996)

Topic: Official Records (Rule 130, Section 44)

THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRICA vs. CALTEX (PHIL.), INC. 
[16 SCRA 448, G.R. No. L-12986, March 31, 1966]

Facts:
The action is for damages for the fire in a Caltex gasoline station in Manila causing damage to petitioner's house, personal property and effects therein.   

Certain reports on the fire prepared by the Manila Police Departments and Fire Departments and by a certain Cap. Tinio of AFP were attempted to be presented by the prosecution. For one, Captain Tinio's report reproduced information given by a certain Benito Morales regarding the history of the gasoline station and what the chief of the fire department had told him on the same subject. 

Other statements were given by an employee at the gas station where the fire occurred; the driver of the tank truck from which gasoline was being transferred at that time to the underground tank of the station; and by the respondent who could not give any reason as to the origin of the fire. Further,some sources of the information stated in the reports were not identified.

The CA denied such reports for being double hearsay.Thus, this petition.

Issue:
If the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated in the reports, which must have been acquired by him through official information, thus such reports do not constitute hearsay, thus admissible?

Held:
NO.The reports do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule as the facts stated therein were not acquired by the reporting officers through official information, not having been given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so.

To qualify their statements as "official information" acquired by the officers who prepared the reports, the persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give such statements for record.