Bembol was charged with rape.

Bembol’s father, Ramil, approached

Artemon, the victim’s father, during the
preliminary investigation and offered P1
Million to Artemon to settle the case.
Artemon refused the offer.

(A) During trial, the prosecution presented

Artemon to testify on Ramil’s offer and
thereby establish and implied admission of
guilt. Is Ramil’s offer to settle admissible in
evidence? (3%)

(B) During the pretrial ,Bembol personally

offered to settle the case for P1 Million to
the private prosecutor, who immediately
put the offer on record in the presence of
the trial judge. Is Bembol’soffer a judicial
admission of his guilt. (3%)

ANSWER:

(A)

No, Ramil’s offer to settle is not admissible as evidence.

Under the jurisprudence, an offer to settle in criminal cases must be made by the
accused himself in order to be received as an evidence of implied admission of guilt.

Here, it is the accused’s father, Ramil, and not the accused himself who offered to settle
the case. Thus, Ramil’s offer to settle is not admissible in evidence.

(B)

Yes, Bembol’s offer is a judicial admission of guilt.

Under the jurisprudence, an offer to settle by the accused himself in criminal case is an
implied admission of guilt. If the statement is repeated in front of the judge, the
extrajudicial admission shall be considered as judicial admission even without the
assistance of a counsel.

Here, the offer of Bembol, the accused himself, to settle the case for 1 Million to the
private prosecutor during the pre-trial is an extrajudicial admission of guilt. However if it
is repeated in front of the judge during the pre-trial, it shall be regarded as judicial
admission. Hence, the same is admissible as an evidence against Bembol.
In a prosecution for murder, the
prosecutor asks accused Darwin if he had
been previously arrested for violation of the
Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As
defense counsel, you object. The trial court
asks you on what ground/s. Respond. (3%)

ANSWER:

As defense counsel, I will object on the ground that the question is immaterial and
irrelevant.

Under the New Rules on Evidence, the prosecution may not adduce evidence as to the
bad moral character of the accused except in rebuttal and in cases relevant to the prima
facie case which involve prior conviction by final judgment.

Here, in the given case, Darwin was only arrested and not convicted by final judgment
in the case for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Hence, it cannot be
used as an evidence as to his bad moral character. Moreover, the Darwin is being tried
in for murder, it has no relevance in violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Thus, the question is objectionable on the ground that it is immaterial and irrelevant.

For over a year, Nenita had been

estranged from her husband Walter
because of the latter’s suspicion that she
was having an affair with Vladimir, a
barangay kagawad who lived in nearby
Mandaluyong. Nenita lived in the meantime
with her sister in Makati. One day, the
house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned
almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister
were caught inside the house but Nenita
survived as she fled in time, while her sister
tried to save belongings and was caught
inside when the house collapsed.
As she was running away from the burning
house, Nenita was surprised to see her husband also running away from the scene.
Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived
near the burned house and whom Walter
medically consulted after the fire, also saw
Walter in the vicinity some minutes before
the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the
parish priest who regularly hears Walter’s
confession and who heard it after the fire,
also encountered him not too far away from
the burned house.
Walter was charged with arson and at his
trial, the prosecution moved to introduce
the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and
the priest-confessor, who all saw Walter at
the vicinity of the fire at about the time of
the fire.

(A) May the testimony of Nenita be allowed

over the objection of Walter? (3%)

(B) May the testimony of Dr. Carlos,

Walter’s psychiatrist, be allowed over
Walter’s objection? (3%)