Admission by Silence

Section 33. Admission by silence. – An act or declaration made in the presence

and within the hearing or observation of a 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 or her to do so, may be given in evidence

against him or her.

Admission by silence has been traditionally received even in common law as admissible

evidence. It involves a statement by a person in the presence of a party to the action,

criminal or civil. The statement contains assertions against the party, which, if untrue

would be sufficient cause for the party to deny. His failure to speak against the

statement is admissible as an admission.

Example: A, upon seeing a policeman, in the presence of other people,

points to B and accuses him as the killer of C, who was found dead the

night before. B does not respond and does not deny the accusation. Such

failure of B to respond may be given in evidence against him.

The idea of the rule on admission by silence is that if an accusation is made, and a

reasonable person would have denied the same if it were false, the failure to deny the

accusation by the person accused may be construed as an implied admission of the

truth of the accusation and may be given in evidence against him.

Requisites:

When silence is deemed an admission

1. Person heard or understood the statement;

2. That he was at a liberty to make a denial;

3. That the statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in which he was

interested and which naturally calls for a response;

4. That the facts were within his knowledge;

5. That the fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue [People v.

Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060 (1978)]

When not applicable

1. Statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official

investigation [U.S. v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 4740 (1908)], as where he was

pointed out in the course of a custodial investigation and was neither asked to

reply nor comment on such imputations [People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423

(1979)]

2. Party had justifiable reason to remain silent, e.g. acting on advice of counsel [2

Regalado 763, 2008 Ed.]

Not every silence is an implied admission.

For instance, the silence of a person under investigation for the commission of an

offense should not be construed as an admission by silence because of constitutional

reasons (Sec. 2[b], R.A. 7438).

Qui tacet consentire videtur

He who is silent appears to consent. This maxim is received on the theory that the

failure to deny what is asserted in the presence of a party is an implied admission of the

truthfulness of a statement.

Doctrine of Adoptive Admission

An adoptive admission is where a party, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopts or

ratifies another’s statement. Evidence of the statement would then be admissible

against him. (Republic v Kendrick Development Corp., G.R No. 149576, Aug. 8, 2006)

The difference between Admission by Silence and Adoptive Admission focuses on

whether or not there is an overt act made by the party in question in admitting or

adopting a particular fact or statement. If he voluntarily adopts or ratifies another

person’s statement through his words or conduct, such shall be considered as an

Adoptive Admission. On the other hand, if he failed to deny an accusation made against

him in his presence, having all the right, liberty and opportunity to do so, and such fact
affects his interest and material to the issue, it shall be considered an Admission by

Silence.

Failure to file a comment

In the case of OCA v. Amor, the Court held that respondent’s failure to file a comment

despite all the opportunities afforded him constituted a waiver of his right to defend

himself. In the natural order of things, a man would resist an unfounded claim or

imputation against him. It is generally contrary to human nature to remain silent and say

nothing in the face of false accusations. As such, respondents' silence may be

construed as an implied admission and acknowledgement of the veracity of the

allegations against him.