Rule 130
Sec. 9. Parol Evidence RuleWhen the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered ascontaining all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties andtheir successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contentsof the written agreement.However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms ofthe written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleadings:An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement ofthe parties thereto;The validity of the written agreementThe existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successor in interest after the execution of the written agreement.MeaningThe parol evidence rule simply means that a written agreement cannot be attackedor modified by oral or verbal evidence. The parol or oral evidence will not beadmissible. It extends as well to other extrinsic evidence.Reason for the RuleWhen parties have reduced their agreements into writing, it is presumed that thewritten instrument is the only memorial of the truth. What is nit found thereis deemed abandoned.The rule insures stability and certainty in the use of written instrument?How is it distinguished from the Statute of Frauds?Problems/ CasesTo invoke the exceptions, what is the procedure?Does it apply to private documents? [Inciong, Jr. v. CA]Does it apply to receipts? [Cruz v. CA]Dos it apply to subsequent agreements? [Canuto]Does it apply to third parties?Intrinsic and Extrinsic AmbiguityIntrinsic or latent is one that does not appear on the face of the instrument, but lies hidden on the person or subject it refers to.Extrinsic or patent
one that appears on the face of the instrument.1988, No 13 (b) [Parol evidence]State or explain briefly the Parol Evidence Rule.1997, Question No. 15 (b) (Parol evidence rule)Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:Parol evidence rule.2001, Question No. 16 (a)Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that although the promissory note says that it is payable within 120 days, the truth isthat the note is payable immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing,he may, upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note.During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that the agreement betweenhim and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety day
fs time. Also since the original note was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a place about one day
fs trip from where he received the notice to produce the note and in spite of such notice, Luciofailed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of the note which was executed at the same time as the original and with identical contents.Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why?Sec. 10-19
Interpretation of DocumentsRule 130, Sec. 26: Admissions
Sec. 26. Admission:Admission to a classmate: Simangan v. P.Admission on affidavit for another purpose Rufina Patis v. Alusitain1996, Question No. 14(1):(Distinguish extrajudicial admission from extrajudicial confession in criminal cases.Sec. 27. Offer of CompromiseAdmissible
Criminal cases [but not offer to plead guilty to lesser offense, a plea withdrawn, to pay medical and hospital expenses]Not admissible:civil casesquasi-offenseSubject to barangay conciliationP. v. Gaudia
Offer made by a relative in a criminal case1998, Question No. 16 (1) A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following pieces of evidence:An offer of A to marry X.[P. v. Domingo, 226 SCRA 156]1996, Question No. 15 (3):X, charged with rape, with homicide, offered P100,000.00 as amicable settlementto the family of the victim. The family refused. During the trial, the prosecution presented in evidence X
s offer of compromise.What is the legal implication of such offer? Explain.1989: No. 11 (1)Pedro was charged with homicide for having hacked Ramon to death. Before the case could be tried, the heirs of Ramon sought out Pedro and discussed with him the possibility of settlement of the case. Pedro agreed to a settlement. When the heirs asked how much he was willing to pay, Pedro offered P30,000 which the heirs accepted. Is the agreement to settle as well as the offer to pay P30,000 byPedro admissible in evidence against him as an implied admission of guilt? Explain.1997, Question No. 15 (e) Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases.1997, Question No. 14 A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital and offered to pay for his hospitalization expenses. After the filing of the criminal case against A for serous physical injuries through reckless imprudence, A
fs insurancecarrier offered to pay for the injuries and damages suffered by B. The offer was rejected because B considered the amount offered inadequate.Is the offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B admissible in evidence?Is the offer by A
s insurance carrier to pay for the injuries and damages of B admissible in evidence?Sec. 28. Res Inter Alios Acta RuleThe rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission ofanother. Exceptions: Sec. 29 - 31AgentJoint ownerJoint debtorPartner
A person jointly inter ested with a partyConspiratorPrivyPoints to remember:Applies only to out-of-court admissions.P. v. Vda. De Ramos [Extra-judicial conf.]Francisco v. P.- admission in another caseGeraldez v. CA [omission of another]Exceptions:Implied acquiescence or silenceInterlocking confessionsAs corroborative evidence in conspiracy2003, Question No. 20 (b)X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application of the prosecution, Y was discharged from the Information to be utilized as a state witness. The prosecutorpresented Y as witness but forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much less offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to kill the victimbut it was X who actually shot the victim. The testimony of Y was the only material evidence establishing the guilt of X. Y was thoroughly cross-examined bythe defense counsel. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed amotion for demurrer to evidence based on the following grounds:Y
s testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to the rule on
res inter alios acta.
Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the above groundsSec. 30. Admission by conspirator:Requisites:Conspiracy is shown by independent evidence;Admission relates to the purpose or object of conspiracy;It was made during the existence of the conspiracyNotes:Requisites does not apply if admission of conspirator is made in open court [cross-examine] [P. v. Flores] [Pregido v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 143]Admissions made in jail after arrest generally cannot be used against a conspirator because that is no longer during the existence of a conspiracy.1991: Question No. 13:During custodial investigation at the Western Police District, Mario Margal wasinformed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent andindependent counsel. He decided to waive his right to counsel and proceeded tomake a statement admitting commission of a robbery. In the same statement, he implicated Antonio Carreon, his co-conspirator in the crime.Is (the statement) admissible against Carreon as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule?Sec. 32. Admission by SilenceAn act or declaration made in the presence and within hearing or observation ofa party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.Pp. v. Garcia -Sec. 32. ConfessionThe declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, orof any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.Extrajudicial and judicial confession:The first is made out of court, while the other is made in open court.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
