Admissions

Sec 26 – Admission against Interest (AAI)

Any ADO of a party as to any relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

Scenarios

Scenario 1 (S1):

What if Y admitted to X an allegation and that X told N. If N were to be witness, is it admissible?

No. It is hearsay. Second hand information. Remote hearsay.

Analysis: It is hearsay. It is merely second-hand info. To overcome hearsay rule, cross examination shall
be made with X before it becomes admissible. Cross examination may be done.

Scenario 2 (S2):

What if X says Y admitted to the allegation, and that X were to be witness, is it admissible?

Yes. It is AAI. First hand information. This is considered first-hand hearsay.

Analysis: X in S2 is the witness. Y admitted something to him. Admission is hearsay but it is admissible
because 1) it is a declaration of the accused Y; and 2) it is a declaration against Y’s interest.

Reasons:

1. It is reliable because of self-preservation. Y would have lied to benefit from it.

2. Cross-examination is legally impossible since the info comes from Y himself, first-hand.

Estrada v Desierto Doctrine: Implied admission when they left the Malacañang. Recordings were also
made in the Angara Diary. Admissible siya kay it is first hand information and that as a result, legally
impossible ang cross examination since it was information directly from the party himself. Cross-
examination against self is not expected. Also, SC decreed that Sec. 26 of Rule 130 has become part of
the exception of the hearsay rule. Before this case, the latter provision was not part of the exceptions
officially. As a result, if it is AAI, it becomes an admissible hearsay despite being hearsay nonetheless.

Basis of Hearsay Rule

Lack of cross examination towards the source of the statement. In S1, hearsay itself can only be
overcome when X is cross-examined. Once latter is made, you can now corroborate a subsequent
witness in testifying the source testimony, the admission itself. Hearsay ceases to exists already once X
has been cross-examined.

AAI(26) vs DAI (38)

AAI: OK ra alive ang nag admit.

DAI: Dead admitter.

AAI: Admissible vs declarant himself only.

DAI: Admissible vs dead man’s successors-in-interest, etc.

AAI and DAI: Di pwede self-serving statements. Pwede ra if adverse ang statements.

Forms of Admissions:

1. Implied
2. Expressed

Forms of Implied Admissions:

1. Compromise
2. Plea of Forgiveness
3. Offer of Marriage
4. Offer of Money

Compromise

1. Admissible ra bsta criminal in nature. Kung civil, dili. Compromise is encouraged bsta civil case.
2. No adverse effect if you compromise in a civil case.

General Rule: If compromise is rejected in a criminal case, it may be used as evidence against the
offeror.

Exceptions in a criminal case:

a) Quasi-offenses – negligence or fault; treated like a civil case; compromise is encouraged

b) Law allows compromise even if criminal in nature like tax evasion, etc
c) Plea of guilt to a lesser offense subject to prosecutor’s approval: if withdrawn, inadmissible. If
rejected by prosecutor. Inadmissible.
d) Medical or hospital bills: encouraged.

Plea of Forgiveness: It must be criminal in nature for it to be admissible.

Offer of Marriage: It must be made with the consent of the accused himself.

Offer of Money: See exceptions above when it involves money since it seems to be like a compromise.
Admission by Third Party

Res Inter Alios Acta – the admission of another cannot prejudice the rights of other persons.

Exceptions:

APCS

a) Admission by Agents and PDOIs

a. Admission by a partner binds the partnership
i. If admission is germane to the partnership
ii. If admission is made while partnership exists
iii. Partnership must be proven via independent evidence
1. Example: X and Y entered into a contract of partnership where they
decided to contribute funds in a retailing business. To have more
additional start-up income, they loaned PHP100,000 from W.
Unfortunately, because of business reverses, their business didn’t go as
planned. Upon demand, X denied contracting such obligation. W filed a
suit for collection of sums of money against the partnership. Y was
called as a witness and testified that they indeed had gotten a loan from
W to have more additional income from the partnership. W also
presented the Articles of Partnership of X and Y as independent
evidence on relationship.
b. Admission by an agent binds the principal
i. If admission is germane to the agency
ii. If admission was made pursuant to an authorization that the agent was allowed
to make statements germane to the agency itself.
iii. If admission is made while agency exists
iv. Agency shall be proven via independent evidence
1. Example: Authority to sell land vested to the agent – expressed and
implied authority on acts made by the agent must exists via SPA.
c. Admission by a Joint debtor binds other debtors
d. Admission by a joint owner binds other owners
e. Admission by a person or entity having joint interest with a party
i. Narra Nickel vs. Redmont: Mining Permit application was opposed because
majority of the 3 applicant corporations were owned by a Canadian Corp.
Oppositor presented JVA of the Canadian Corporation. Latter argued that even if
it was an admission, we’re not a party to a case. Hence, inadmissible. SC said no.
It is admissible because the Canadian Corp is an entity jointly interested with the
parties of the case: the 3 corporations for having major ownership over the
latter which if inferred can be seen as an entity also interested with the issuance
of the mining permit.
1. X Corp, a domestic corporation, applied for a mining permit. This was
opposed of by Z on the ground that majority of X Corp is owned by A
Corp, a foreign corporation. Z presented JVA between X Corp and A
 Corp. While this is an admission, A Corp may be tempted to say that
even if it is an admission on its part, it is not a party to the case. In lieu
of this, SC said that it is still admissible because A Corp is jointly
interested with the party impleaded in the case, X Corp. Hence, its
admission, even if it is not a party to the case, shall still be admissible.
This is a case where a non-party’s (A) admission affects the rights of
another (X).
ii. Learning Child vs. Ayala Homeowners: This is a case where a subdivision is
involved which is owned by Ayala which thereby handed management to
Homeowners. Ayala had a Deed of Restriction which stated that if a school were
to be built inside the subdivision, it would only be up to preschool. Of course, a
school was made and it was up for expansion. This was opposed by the
Homeowners because traffic may ensue. So, the school owner sought Ayala’s
approval, an admission which gave rise to the counterargument of the
homeowners that the admission of Ayala, a third party, cannot make prejudice
the rights of the Homeowners to enforce the Deed of Restriction. SC said that
the res inter alios acta rule can NOT apply because Ayala is an entity jointly
interested with a party in this case, the Homeowners because the deed of
restriction contains that both latter entities may enforce the deed.
1. X made a subdivision. After creation, it turned over its management to
ABC Homeowners. W made a school and tried to expand which its
expansion is not allowed pursuant to a Deed of Restriction made by X.
However, W presented a permit allowing the expansion from X, the
previous owner. This is an admission on the part of X which shall bind
ABC Homeowners, the party in this case. Bale W says X allowing it, is
ABC allowing it as well. Homeowners says no, res inter alios acta rule
applies. RIAA applies because X and ABC are those that are allowed to
enforce regulations pursuant to the Deed.
b) Admission by Privies
a. There must be transfer of ownership prior to the controversy.
b. It must be made by a predecessor
c. Predecessor must have admitted it while he holds title over the property
i. Example: X send letter as an offer to buy property from Cebu City. X buys it from
Cebu City. X then sells house to Y. Cebu City files a case for recovery stating that
the letter sent by X is recognition of their ownership. SC says that res inter alios
acta rule does not apply and that its admission cannot be used against Y
because that admission under the letter was made before X held title over the
property.

ii. X owns a parcel of land. X told his friend, B, that such land was under a contract
to sell with Z. Z paid fully and registered it under his name. Now, FGH Corp
claims that they paid for such land and that they claim ownership over it. Z may
present B to testify the admission of X pertaining the contract to sell. An
 admission by X, the predecessor therefore binds Z, the successor because it was
admitted by the former while he was still holding title over the parcel of land.
c) Admission by Conspirators
a. It must be made by a conspirator
b. The admission of one is the admission for all
c. It must be admitted while the conspiracy was still existing
d. Conspiracy ceases to exist when the crime has been committed
e. Hence, admission must be made at the planning stage and before commission of crime

TN: When it is made after commission of crime and that one conspirator only admits it on trial, res
inter alios acta rule does not anymore apply because the confession itself has become a judicial
confession. Res inter alios acta rule shall be noted to be applicable when it talks of an extra judicial
confession.

Example: X, along with ABC planned to rape Z. X went home afterwards and got drunk. X confessed
the plan to his girlfriend. Such is an admission by X which may bind ABC that may be testified by the
girlfriend in the case.

Note: If the confession was made after the commission of crime, conspiracy ceases to exists and the
exception of admission by conspirators can NOT apply.

d) Admission by Silence: he who is silent appears to consent

a. There must be a face-to-face interaction
b. Interaction involves a declaration as against the other
c. The declaration is adverse against one party
d. That one party remained silent about it.
i. Right to remain silent vs. Admission by Silence
1. If person has the right to remain silent, ABS does not apply. It cannot be
invoked against you.
2. If person is in a situation where RRS cannot be invoked as a right, ABS
may apply. Being silent may be used against you.
NOTE: If person is under custodial investigation and he is silent, being silent
cannot be used against that person. This rule likewise applies where an accused
is called for the witness stand in a criminal case. Otherwise, if the latter
circumstances are not the cases presented, being silent can be used against you
like the following:
 Example 1: When a private complainant in a criminal case fails to rebut
a damaging evidence presented by the accused and that when the
former refuses to take the witness stand as an opportunity to refute
such damaging evidence. This is an example of admission by silence.
 Example 2: Corporation by estoppel. A, B, and C merely smiled when X
told Z that along with A, B, and C, incorporation was done among them
when in reality, there was none. Afterwards, X and Z entered into a loan
agreement whereby X defaulted and that Z filed a suit for collection of
sums of money. In this case, since A, B, and C were silent when X said a
refutable declaration in front of them, they are estopped to deny that
 there was an incorporation that took place. Hence, A, B, C and X shall be
solidarily liable to Z.
e) Adoptive Admission
a. It is a specie of ABS or admission by silence
b. It talks of positive acts
c. Such positive acts, if inferred to, are to be understood as an acquiescence of an act.
d. Silent, indeed, but is adopting to a statement suggested towards the person silent.
i. Estrada vs. Desierto: Act of Estrada in adopting suggestion of Angara to exit
gracefully from the Malacanang Palace. Even if silent, he adopted the suggestion
and left.
ii. Kendrick Case: Kendrick Corp did not rebut the evidence presented by its lawyer
stating that it did not sign the answer to the pleading which thereby makes
them in default. Instead, they justified such absence of signature. Silent but is
inferred as an admission. This is a case where the ABS rule may be used against
the plaintiff as well.
Hearsay

Provision

It is an entirely new provision – Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Old rule only defined hearsay
as a statement other than one made during a trial. Right now, its definition has been expanded.

Operative Factor

The operative factor that makes a statement a hearsay is when it is made to prove the truth or falsity of
the facts asserted in a statement. If it is only something that is offered to prove the fact that it has been
said, it shall be considered as an independent relevant statement (IRS).

IRS

Independent relevant statement is a statement that is offered by a witness to prove the fact of its
utterance by someone other than the latter taking the witness stand. This is relevant in circumstances
when the utterance is the fact in issue or that it is circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue regardless
if the statement made was true or not.

Illustrative Examples:

1. Libel – fact of utterance of an imputation against the aggrieved shall be admissible when presented by
a witness who heard the accused do the libelous act. (Fact in Issue)

2. Insanity – when X testifies that during the altercation between A and B, the latter uttered statements
like “I am the Son of God, I am the most powerful among all and I own Duterte. He’s just my pet” before
he shot A which caused to her death. (Circumstantial Evidence)

Statement

It is under the new provision that the expansion was emphasized particularly the part where
statements, when made as an assertion of something, it may be either:

a. oral or written (expressed)

b. non-verbal conduct (implied assertion)
i. Example: Rape case – X testified that while Y was being penetrated by Z, Y
smiled and gave X a thumbs up. If this was offered to prove the truth or falsity
that the thumbs up was to assert consent, it shall be inadmissible for being
hearsay.

Effect of Cross-Examination
Under the doctrine laid down by the SC in the case of Padit, it was emphasized that a statement is not
hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning
the statement. This is because the evil sought to be avoided when a statement is considered hearsay is
the fact that the declarant did not testify and that its absence shall prejudice the other party.

Amendment in relation to Padit

It is not enough that cross-examination is made towards the declarant to overcome hearsay, it shall also
be characterized by the following:

1. Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony – used to rebut claims of the declarant
a. Example: Declarant X claims she is not in any relationship with Y in a cross-examination.
Y may introduce Z as witness testifying that in occasions before and after the
controversy (filing of the rape case), X told Z about her relationship with Y. Z’s testimony
is admissible for being one that is inconsistent with X’s claims after the latter has been
cross-examined.
2. Consistent with the declarant’s testimony – used to rebut charge against the declarant
a. Example: Declarant Y was cross-examined where she claims that there is no amount of
money that could stop the institution of a rape case against Z. Z presents the defense
that Y blackmailed him and that if 1M was not given to her, Y will accuse him of rape. Y,
after being cross examined, may present X in support of her claim in the cross-
examination which contemplates the opposite situation pertaining the defense of Z.
3. For identifying a person after perceiving the latter
a. Example: Y was cross-examined and that she claims Z to be the rapist. Y presents X
stating that Y told him after the rape via phone call that Z was the rapist. It may seem to
be hearsay because X does not have any PK as to the truth of Y’s statement but because
it falls under item c), it shall not be considered hearsay.

EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY

1. Statement of a decedent or a person of unsound mind: Since DMS has been decreed as one
that does not disqualify the party, assignor, nor the party in whose behalf the action was
prosecuted in testifying against the estate of a deceased or of a person of unsound mind on
matters that occurred before death of the deceased or before the person’s mind became
insane, then the testimony of the former is admissible even if against the latter if the following
requisites are met:
i. Testimony of PAP relating to the dead or insane
ii. It was a statement of the dead or insane based on PK
iii. It was a statement based on recently perceived matter by the dead or insane
1. Examples: X borrowed 2M from Z in a form of loan. X thanked Z because
X used 2M in buying Fortuner. X died. Z wants to declare that the
Fortuner be part of X’s whole estate. Z may present the declaration of X
in thanking him about the borrowed 2M and that it was the money used
in buying the Fortuner. While Z’s testimony is hearsay, it is an exception
under ROC. Hence, it is admissible hearsay.
 2. Exception the exception to hearsay: lack of trustworthiness pertaining
the statement of the dead or insane like when the statement was made
by the dead or insane while he was suffering Alzheimer’s disease.
2. Declaration Against Interest:
a. Declarant is dead/unable to testify
i. If unable to testify – declarant shall have been insane or physically incompetent
or that there was effort in producing him in court but to no avail, production
was not made. (Zoilo)
b. Declaration was made before the controversy
c. Declaration was against the interest of the declarant when it was made
i. Example: Parel vs Prudencio – Affidavit was presented which was made by X
stating that he is not the owner of the building and that Y shall be the one they
shall go after for real property taxes because the latter is the owner and not him
(X). Since the same was made before the controversy and that it was already
against his interest when it was declared even before such controversy, it shall
be admissible despite being hearsay.
3. Common Reputation
a. Matters of General or Public Interest
i. Not needed to be 30 years or more - amended
b. Marriage or Non-marriage of a Person
c. Moral Character/Reputation may also be allowed in this exception

NOTE: Fact of Marriage may be proven via admissible hearsay under pedigree, family reputation and
common reputation.

4. Treatises
5. Residual Exception
6. Dying Declaration
a. Declarant is dead
b. Declarant declared while he knows he’s to die
c. He would have been a competent witness if he was alive.
d. Declarant declares a statement surrounding his death.
e. Subject inquiry of the case is the death of the declarant.
7. Acts/Declaration about Pedigree
a. Declarant is dead or is unable to testify
b. Declaration talks about pedigree of another person
c. Declarant is related by birth, marriage, adoptive relationship, or one that is intimately
associated with the family
8. Family Reputation/Tradition
a. Testimony of a Witness
i. Declarant is alive
ii. Declarant is the witness himself
iii. Declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question
b. Family Possessions
 i. Items commonly treasured by the family members as evidence of pedigree like
family diary or family bible containing stuff about pedigree.
ii. Only members of the family can use these items.
9. Res Gestae
a. First Form: Spontaneous Statements
i. Statement made
ii. Statement was in response to a startling occurrence
iii. There was an absence of opportunity for the declarant to deliberate
1. PP vs. Anecito: rape admitted by a child to her mother and that the
mother told the barangay tanods and police about it.
b. Second Form: Verbal Act
10. Entries in the Course of Business
11. Official Record
12. S
13. S
14.