16 [RULES oF couRT SBC. 26, RULE 130 Implied adminsins are those which may be i declarations or amissons of a party. ‘Therefre so coon ae Implied from conduct, statement or silence of a party, “For iran the Bhat iis ot the tenaals duly too sat Aol the tena a the accused and his lengthy sojourn another province tnd oo net pare ae alte fo show cnucnamet of gu kare Sete me a; “he wicked fh, ren when no at pits; ee lure to anewer a eter docs ot give rie to an implied admis ‘as to the truth of the statements oct id there since teens cag seoertea e ment ll Soa aay Sn Sate ee Fem “Sey ether a Bobet el ot eta see ean na sane sis Sl etn we nity ate anne ema oe rue 1p am ation o recover the possession of « reduced {B eridence a document signed by the defentant Ta My, 18Gh I ee Eat he tact of lend fo lefndant ba aden Fearne y bin to ts feces Hee cet REGIE cy Rca eset ed SUSE Gael nln gi seca ae Brea aac may ca, ee ple pera a car he ete cae tera FF AGS enh se bm i ro ee a Fe ee san saat Se ie i es en PS en ee fiver Gt ae oi fe yee tae i ete the, Ee Site ieee cease reeey are Bnei spec sm thet i cinuea Deaton oe ‘Couey fete the 126 Mass. 374 Phil 810; U.S. ve Viery, 87 Phil 618 628; U.S. ve g peated signifies strung sense of guilt and an It and an awazencs that enable defenses" Pople we Dat, tal i80 SCHR See haemalemhemele "astman 1 Cush 16, 48 A a, 4 Tow. Pr. Parle ve. Deion, Sars 8: BEE PE Warne we Digpeventra "a. ‘bavy 1 PL M5 Une” Se ule ghee On htt al AT 0.6 6124. See leo US. vn. Cardona, 96 PA i : SEC: 26, RULE 180 EVIDENCE a QUESTION 5. — Is the act of repairing the defect which causeed con injury to be construed as an implied admission of negligence? ANSWER, — Implied admission of negligence may not be inferred from an set of repairing a defect which eaused an injury, The rule is founded on sound reasons and good poliey. A person may hive exereised all the care which the Jew required, and yet, in the light of his new ‘experience, after an unexpected accident has occurred, and a8 a measure of extreme caution, he may adopt additional safeguards. The more care~ {ula person is, the more regard he hes for the lives of others, the more Tikely he would be to do eo, and it would seen usjust that he eould nok do 20 without being lable to‘have such acts construed as an admission of prior negligence. Says Baron Bromvell: “People do not furnish evidence ‘against themselves slmply by adopting a new plan in order to prevent the recurrence of an accident, ‘To hold a proposition to the contrary would be barbarous. It would be to hold that, beeause the world gets wiser as it gets older, therefore it was foolish before.” A rule which so operates ag fo deter men from profiting by experience, and avaling themselves of new information, has nothing to commend it, for it is neither expedient no just." QUESTION 6. — Distinguish admission from confession. ANSWER. — A distinetion must be made between confessions and admissions, A confession, a distinguished from an adimission, isa declara Hion-made at any time by a person, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that hé had committed or particinatad inthe commission of erime. ‘The term admission, on the ther hand is usually applied in.eriminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not direct involve an acknowledgment of the gullt of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. QUESTION 7. — Distinguish admission from declaration against interest. ANSWER. — An admission is distingiiahablefrom_a declaration against interest in several respects, ‘The admission is_primary evidence and is receivable, although the declarant is available a @ witness; it competent only when the declarant, oF someone identified in legal interest with him, is a party to the action; and need not have been considered ly the dettran¢ as opposed to his interest at the time when it was made. ‘The declaration Syatast Interest is in the nature of secondary evidence, recelvable only" When. Tarant is unavailable as a witness; It is ‘competent in any action to which it is relevant, although the declarant isnot a party to, or in privity with, any party to the action; and it must have been, when made, te the knowledge of the declarant, against his abvioas and real interest.* QUESTION 8. — How is the term “party” used in the rule cons- trued? _ ANSWER. — The rule makes reference to the act; declaration or mission of a party xxx, Wrerve Havie & 1 RCo, va Clem, 188 Ind. 16, 18, 28 NE. £65,966, 7 LILA. ir ieee 1 A ha nat we, Sane18 RULES OF COURT SEC. 26, RULE 199 me rocedsat Pty" is meant party to the action who has been served with QUESTION 8. — What is the recson of the an admission Of « party i evidence against hip SO °F Me rie that an am ANSWER. — The rule that the act, declrati pert may be given in evidence spun hin phased pa he {hat no man could declare anything against himself unless euch decor ratlons were true.” A man's act, conduct, and declarations, Sheva Soc Yovided they be voluntary, are admiaibe aguint Re 2 at itis fair to presume correspond with the’ it fa they do wot" than co aor freaks Co firmed by the fa fur the value of perv the itr’ house © Mipates the aoc ty ANSWER. — It is rue that“ stetament fs not compete . - ‘atement isnot eompetnt ax an dear aged haat aan iy aa ite = the fat hich s sought an SEGRE gsi be cope thre ree nite certain sod are a of the Ph vw: Bly & Siety Coy 61 PB 6) Poin Talc UREN Pn a son ll i «em ANSWER. — ‘An admission may be introduced in eviden ays: (a) as Independent evidence, and 0) 20 ei nee to a) Ae independent evidence. — Admissions are origi TEESE tha 971, og Section 22, (now See. 26) Bute 180 of the Ricles of Court Provide see ct i ou no tt a 2 Seemny eam rae int bs ES ste Sata asa ene reel re idence by Haley, Behbis KK ip RieStt ary See feiher with bulatlon Esai Ki covering ‘the period from: October 16, of fe Jemeary 22 ictor faye, Keller's finance manager, submitted a's Soh SRC iba et SP Gow Morctng or alr cad BaBB JC Hbeard'A, Keer cay BU, COB Gey ref ete Traby vs Seber, a2 Pa, St. 20, ™ mugmor on Evin (Stud Testy tae * HME Po, ® Pi. as, ea, GS Foseing, Uh." Court af Appalis ef al, 211 SCRA 314 ahd, its, | i ' SEC. 25, RULE 150 EVIDENCE 19 exact words of the statement be repeated; the law does not require impossibilities. If the witness states the substance of the conversation ‘or declaration, the admission of his testimony is not erroneous. When the admission is in a private writing, there must be some proof ‘of the authenticity or identity of the writing in accordance with Section 20, Rule 182 of the Rules of Court, that is, the party offering it must prove its due execution and authenticity, Where the admission is in a public document, the same does not need any authentication since Section 20, Rule 182, provides that public documents are evidence, even against fa third person, of the fact that gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latier. {b) As impeaching evidence. — If proof of the admission is sought for impeachment, purposes, a proper foundation must be laid for the ‘impeaching questions, by calling the attention of such party to his former statement so as to give him an opportunity to explain before such admis~ slons arv offered in evidence This is in conformity with Section 18, Rule 182, which provides that “before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons preseit, and he ‘must be asked whether he made such statements, and if s0, allowed to plain them, If the statements be in writing they must be shown to ‘the witness before any question is put to him concerning them.” ‘The following examples ilustrate the rules regarding the introduc- tion of admissions in evidence either as an independent evidence or as Impeaching. evidence: P sues D for a balance due and unpaid for groceries furnished, ‘The claim is for P175 due on July 81, "D disputes the amount due, and offers a statement of account sont by P in September reading “Balance due — al OS. 6, ‘The. defendant offered in evidence testimony given im an earlier cate by members fue plant frm, ie was eld thet if nach acimony cotained admissions beset Ingest by the parien te the action or their agents, would hae born stimiaie iithoot the laying of a foundation aed without the witneces paving tstfnd {heeaae at bart but the porpoes af the offer nue evidrty fp impeach The textnnony tthe sume wilneses in the preset cane and 3 so, a foubfation sheald Dave been fo the former vsteents 9 a neg to impeach wines of the adversary by prot of = should, im the erosxanination of sock wes, ay aus forthe Introduction of the contradictory pont by asking the witeet fhe lee specified aka crate eatements differnt from thane UB. Bagot, 40 PR 386 samme snd ewido fer cout of pure aed Juang imson appealed caning that there tbo competent ridesne that she tim were husband ang if” The lain ia itout meri= She stineny of the llant om direct ratplaaton diucoed several tines that abe wae maricd 0 the ‘eceasd in beth "Chureh and’ iv marraguns On eress-exemination she farting fn the exact eto of ie mariage tothe denned (4 July 184) and the place (Pll, {Camarines Sur) where Dey wene married She did not aly admit that the daceaed ‘us her husband bot also brow oat the fact that ot ofthe marciage they hd fine idhen and that any three ave living, namely: Glenda, Manual and Fes ndeed, there could bn better proof of marrage to a patie ease than the admleion by the agen of the existe of sath msveepe People ce. Somsey, 117 Phi. 182, seit i180 RULES oF court in chief of ici nh yi crn dour and ol er. the tacts ad bees mate anne sent dt omc fl ae (Scere 8 ore at do orate kita Mine, Be tears as ee ee i ooot Det reo taps SEO. 26, RULE 130 ‘p) Camisible and may be presented as part of the evidence A sl serving declaration is one made by a partyin hs omni Se made by 2 som interst st game lace and tne out ef cur and ft doen ea which he ives as a witness at the trial. ceneme ea Salf-servng dsarations may be oa or write, or ats and enact dene gUESTION 18. — Are self-serving declarations admissible in evi. objection to the character. SE Eanes ce eee ni Soret pics ames pein a erates rr ete fia teneige ena te SE Jones on Tvideney, Bed, Sec. 695 SEC. 28, RULE 190 EVIDENCE ae ‘The rule which renders self-serving statements inadmissible is the sume in eriminal prosecutions as in civil actions» QUESTION 14. — What is the reason for the exchision of self. serving declarations? ANSWER. — The rensons for the inadmissibility of self-serving cclarations in favor of the declarant are: firstly, the inherent untrust- worthiness of the dedlarations; secondly, the fact that to permit their introduction would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony ; and thirdly, the fact that if testified to by one other than the declarant, they would be hearsay? QUESTION 15, — Docs death render self-serving declaration ad miscible? ANSWER. — The more fact of death alone does not render com. petent selfserving conduct, admissions or declarations of the deceased person during his life-time>* 20 Am. Jur. anon, Vee va, Walthan 167 Mase. 642,82 N.E. G01; Cox ve. Royal Tebe of Zoweph, (2 Ore. 388,71 Pac. 18 a ‘The defendsot, a provincil treasurer of Sorgue,reseived from the cashier of {he dame province's erin sum of money, which he took with him tothe Cy o Manila Instead of depuelting it in the Pbllpping ‘Netinal Bank, which e ‘ea fccusimed todo, be boveht it to Moses Nore, his home. proviee,”equred by ihe Otte of Insular audio to present said sun, the atused aed that he bad no farvied ft with him to the ety pd furthermore delred, underoath that the money tran ta hi vaults tn Surigao “AM investigation commilice opened che alls of the Teese but found no money therein. ‘The defendant wrote reveral eters to bls we, ‘who ‘was then in Laoag, informing her of the loss of the pulile funds for "which ‘ean beng bates Te was held hat hy lators writen by'a person and addvesced "rite, informing her of tho loss of pubic finds, for te mabversation of which bes being proccuted, can not be edmiied fn evidence, eousne they are seserving. People olen, GN. Lf, ne ih, 1040, VII Ld. she ‘Pleo offered in evidence an invortory of the property left by Maelo Quintane ‘at hig death made by the executr, for the purpece of showing that this land has ‘eon aispoed of by Motel before ls death exceutor who made thls inventory Ip the plant in one of the ober ccs The fudge Felectod thn evidence, to Which the plintity excepto ‘There was: go tren la Dis Tuli” Past cotld act {his way create erence for Mimo after the death of Manela. Lin: Ching, Pervarive, el, 8 Phd 181, 13h, ‘Appalant's defense hinges on the jamming of the demncd's pistol, His theory is tht the deceased failed to fire hia pistol Grouse ie jammed when he attempted to fire the first shot agnnst appallan.” Te appears, however, upon expert tstimany on record, that the jemi. Of the Ffcarm wan die no! 1 any mechanieal fact ‘hae Tatetinal insertion ef a let from the oataide Int the pee’ barrel. The ‘act that the appellant had experience jn handling firearms and the Zact tht it tok tm more than’ te necessary Teagth of time from tho Toment he took the pista af the deceased tothe moment hen he presented it to the authoritestogeer wth Me ‘om ly strane grounds for the beet Cat appellant concocted Uh Jamming of the ‘itl to as to enable him to present In eoure x efserving evidence. Perse Bodie, G8. No, Lasse, May i, Toit 2 Ward vs, Ward, 37 Mich 263; Pym ve. Pym, 118 Wis, 652,96 N.W, 62; Rice vs Garey, 170 Cal 18 ‘Where it appearad that a widower sought te have cm abscute deed, made though nerdy to decd wifey declared fof a merznge, evidence of etn the priate in of the docaced tote supporig the ieq iat ft was an absolute Teen bald nadmiable Bald the courts “IE the bill of cemplaat sn tart te le rng ta i, cry thee ene wuld reo Drobeive fore agaist ber husband, ‘They seem us equaliy sblectinable as Evidence in faver of thee who clin to her ght" Wilson onc Terry, 71 Wa. 768® Hous or count stoa5, ue QUESTION 16. — Are unsworn aclf-serving dec ia Deen fo uty aime fro fe oy NF ANSWER he the sate of te pry bine ro 20 pais na ee iy os exal> ainguet Te nsor Slerans in beh of «sty ce et 4 rogers his employer; (2) alice of the coporsion as corporations; (8) a pubic offer, a regards a public Corpustiny std (9) predecessors in title, as regards an owner of ‘Property. ’ QUESTION 17. — Are diaries admissible in evidencet ANSWER —as sin, dns aya ne seer any Sl rt try ye at i so been held that an entry in a diary being in the nature of "sion Pa needs ne te a sey QUESTION 18. — Is. letter not in anticipation of «tigation ANSWER. -— An invoee prepared by a merchant inthe ety ever ‘merchandise consigned to his agent fn the province aul a kite oh one fperciant requesting confirmation of the rept af sad merehende he agent are notsltvarvng if they had been prepared so hte ee, of tention in which they! were presented as ealience=" Nes et carton con of ltr of demund sent To the dena cio what QUESTION 19, — hen are self-serving de party admissible in his own bekay ees eee declarations made by a ou EE, SRE Aes mt reer ae mG Sete Stes amen suc fetes aiawceer at ean on Evidence, 24 od, Sa. 897. 157-903; 8 Jones om vidence,24-ed. eo, ‘EFeople va, Alvero, Ge Ne I-80), April yea SHIRE Fe Bel Geen Gime, tals 6. ae, me tg0 Ch, Tne. vx. Doings, CAG. No" L-2S41-R, Jannary 90, ney. of Evidence, 21 BaGae gpg 6 5 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, See. Bp Meron 1 Bvidenee, See. 680, SRC. 26, RULE 190 EVIDENCE ae (6) Where they are offered hy the opponent. The objections whic ‘nave been pointed out do not apply against the reception of the statements of one party as evidence when such statements are offered by his adver~ sary.” Every argument that can be Talod against the admission of the ‘oral or written statements of a party in his own favor ean be successfully turned when such statements are offered against him (6) When they are offered without objection, the evidence camot afterward be objected to a8 incompetaat.* QUESTION 20. — In a case, it appears that the offended party was choked by her som,” After the choking, she could no Tanger sualose any food, nor drink, due 20 her swollen neck. Three days after, she died. "When inveetignted, the accused denied that he choked his mother, and claimed that his mother died of a natural sickness. Likewise, during the investigation, accused cried and acked for forgiveness from his sisters and begged them to discontinue the case against him. And while he tbs uno dterton, he setter ip is other aking ‘hen for forgiveness and. pity, and. requesting his sisters to withdraw the compleint against him. ‘The defense claims that eoid letter should have Beer eanidered i fovor of the necatd. Te the clam of the defense tenabler ANSWER. — The behavior of the appellant during the investigation 4s incompatible with his protestations of innocence. “He eried and asked for forgiveness from his sisters, Too, he wrote a letter to his brother- inlaw, seeking forgiveness from his sisters and asking them to testify ‘that thelr mother died a natural death, But appellant argues that, instead of considering said letter as evidence indieative of his gut, the trial court Should have considered it in his favor, because he dislaimed therein his suilt.. But if appellant therein asked forgiveness, there is no reason why aid statements could not be taken as an admission of appelant’s guilt. AAs to the argument that sai leter should have bear considered in appel- Jant’s favor, Te ay be stated that self-serving statements made extra jualeally cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of the person making ‘them, although the incriminating. statement is evidence against him. (People vs, Piring, 68 Phil 546). QUESTION 21. — According to the wife of the deceased, in the afternoon of December 28, 1956, while she was pounding rice in her yard, the aorused arrived and asked her to leave her husband and, a he refused, he indicated that he would seck means to separate her from hher husband; that in the evening of said day, becoming impatient for her husbandt’ return she went £0 the Bitehen where she se the accused At the stare, that the accused eonfecced to her that he hilled her husbend those body lay at the creck east of the howse; that she awakened her nother end eildren and told them about this occurrence; upon advise Of her mother, she requested her neighbors, Santiago Balderas and one surnamed Baroan, to help her bring her husband's body to the house. 1s the testimony of the wife sl-seroing? ANSWER. — ‘The wie of the deceased displayed courage in admit. ting having had ill relations with the accused and thereby dshonoring Bf Fons om viens, tS. 88 2p Nw or te Ga 98 Ang, D195 1 NYS, 36, ‘Pele vs Dolor OR: Mo 36108) Bay, 1801 HUES oP CORT spe, g, put an and humiliating ars, abviosy tobe eral, obvioay to brig out the truth breval Her testny is not self-serving becate she janet Suse any beneficial interest,” There is no pint in the alogtto tane e See 27. Offer of compromise not admiseb il cass, offer of compromise is not an aan mat Smilin evidence sett afer” © ty an Toot cic wo or ing qt res AS yt tl tt Page ca seo eae 1p al hi tn of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admisait ibe, Tae net ‘ected who ale the peor efter, ne erence sent the An offer o payor the payment of media, Senses A oF the payment of medical, hospital or other « ‘occasioned by an injury is not admissit evi as m aT ONG Ae aie i rine pot af Cl EE Spon die, & Seto to cet R Admicions made ip connection cisions made in connection with offer of compromise ip ci? cae 2. offers eoaprontn nia st When otter af compromine “" rome in criminal cases net an implied admission of es 11, wll of pa AR Unnccptd offer of ples of uty, 18, Perel of metal ta sak ene 1 Bape adnan of st wore Otero stan QUESTION 1. — Define compromise, ANSWER, — Compromise is an agreement move partes as a settlement of matters‘in dpater s* PONCE 180 or QUESTION 2 — Plaintiff claimed to be representi rumors Leones of a parce of land in Paco, Mana, Beongtey tee 4a va Corporation sole and alleged that’ they had premise fr many years, under ora agreements of Sete fo my a nie terms, an (hes or hb a a Bred te hao the prem ey mee tee fae Stem ex SA Ae 8 SBC. 2, RULE 180 EVIDENCE 185 ANSWER. — The agreement, therefore, was a true compromise the ‘essence of which resides in reciprocal concessions.* QUESTION 8. — Is an offer of compromise in civid cases admis. sible in evidence? ANSWER. — An offer of compromise in cit to an odmisson of Wabity, Tt i not ams QUESTION 4. — P; a pedestrian, i injured by a car driven by D. P. sues for $10,000, D offers to settle the ease for $5000. P dedlinee. May P introduee D's settlement offer into evidence? ANSWER. — At trial, P may not introduce D's settlement offer ‘nto evidence on the theory that it constitutes an admission by D of liability, Conversely, had P offered to take $5,000 in settlement and D had refused, ‘D could not introduce P's-offer to show that P had serious doubts about the merits of his claim. QUESTION 5. — P's decedent is a passenger in a car driven by D; she is hiled when the ear hile another car. P (the decedent's mother) testifies at trial that after the accident, D talked to her about the accident and “he said he would settle with us if it wasn't taken care of.” P offers this statement as an admission of lability. Is the slate. ‘ment of D admissible in evidence? ANSWER, — The testimony is admissible, because ft related to an admission of Habiity by D, and was not an offer of compromise. ‘There ‘was no controversy between P and D at the time, and no demand was being made upon Dat the time® QUESTION 6, — Why is an offer of compromise in civil eases not admissible in evidence? ANSWER. — It is the policy of the law to favor the settlement of Aisputes, to foster compromises, and to promote peace. If every offer to nC May, 0 9BA HF Ct ve aneach Eyl ano wna eo kc Sm sete nee ser ae pie as ne tention 13 Ti eat un ele pron ree tal ee te eons td Goh aoc ee ee FE oe eacon nett ie pr oo ep Cette Si A sm a Tear het a ge sm ng SSL seta poiealosagain A amma Te Am in tc etal sone pet re ra ee et sera Soe Si Inca dar ae eee haar A aay goers igs taeal ete) os gnc SORES Sit ocr ace Ch? ae SAE Eda et ca. TRAITS ERS tee are iHitig 2 RS Ra Bh dation cases does not amount in evidence against the186 RULES OF COURT ‘SBC. 27, RULE 120 bby peace could be used as evidence against bon who presents i, many wns would be prevented, and unnecessary litigation would fe or dluced and prolonged’ "No prudent man would dare approsch His clveroey with an otfer of eompromise if he thought his adversary would be aed {ofa advantage of bi of i court aed eal I conf ot Weakness, ‘To allay such fear the court ‘have always Uensenea ere tempt to prove ai offer of compromise?" "YS denounced QUESTION 1. — When ave aimissions made in connection with on sifer of compromise in el canes amicable in evident 8 tel na coma Saree Seieit "Kars cnet gimme sir cuaetes hataa meoe anu unqualified admission of indebtedness acoompanying at Gite cree eect Ace erry eco, i el a Sse A Pn owas seit RCE AS RIE EEN pet cme Several Years previous to the institution of the present suit, the plaintitt a in et erase te aay Be arc gt it decelerate Sate : eed a sult at wt tee haan Eons Ug ty arg oar ra. er Ls eS a ea eters oer Ge BC ee ce ; ae ; ‘Sgainst the debtwr, through the seknos fenton, oF thong ft Sg weet tian Gaur gto 4 Ge paaty wane et Cc oe ge SOU SEIaga ea ei a th ions of the above-named articles, if it did not Bio peraseemgumrad curtied. tee! tated aR a potent si Caco “Prag otha Pure Ps SoS et ry Pa edn a st ly SPE a Che eta ate of srr sed aus Baga) Ba fing te due, and lnot adiasble In evidenen?™ “Lichouoo ve. Limuce and Secon he a SOMNil ve, lbs, 12 Pei (US) 8h 9 Led oon >? See ee eee ee sce tam on SEO, 27, RULE 239 EVIDENCE aut property, and an admission affecting lability for a tort are admissible in evidence, notwithstanding they were made during negotiations carried on for the purpose of effecting a settlement. QUESTION 8. — P, a pedestrian, is run over by D ond-badly injtired. P suss D; shortly thereafter, D says to P, “I'm a0 sorry about this — at's ‘all my fault, because I was drunk that night. I pay ow $6,000 to drop your action” May P introdage into evidence D's statement that he was drunk? ANSWER. — P may not introduco the fuet that D offered $5,000 to show that D believed he is Hable. But she may, under the common- Jaw rule, introduce D's admission to having been drunk, sineo that isan admission of fact QUESTION 9. — What és the effect of an offer of compromise in criminal case? ANSWER. — In criminal casos an offer of compromie by the accused ‘may be received in evidence as an implied admission of gui ‘The weight both of authority and reason sustains the rele whieh ‘admits evidence of offers to compromise, in eriminal eases, but permits «the accused to show that such offers wore not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that, the offer to compromise was not in truth an admission of his guilt and an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue ‘therefrom* It is a legal maxim, which atsuroily constitutes one of the bases of ‘the right to penalize, that in the matter of public crimes which directly ‘affect the publi interest, in so far as public vengeance and private interests dare concerned, no compromise whatever may be entered into as regards the penal action, however it may be with respeet to the civil liability” 118 B, 156, 1 MeNeer ve, Norflet 18 Mls. 613, 14 So, 07, Aan 12 Bane vas Siity 6°18. Mes (KY) 965,17 Aim Deo. ‘The general role fe thot an offer of compromise is Insdmissbs, Where how- vor the amount bth offer to accrt & certain sum in aelemeat appears to, have Stet arrved at an a fir evtinute of valve a relevent. The cule of exluson of compromise negotiations doer not apply where there fe ne etic expressed or Inplied' of Habiity, and the only qoertone dacuaed relate to the amount to be [On the facta, thal, dhe reasonable value of the repairs Pectormed. BY Varadero de anil’ onthe lighter Tae omnes $y the Jnuiue Lanter Combasy, wan PYIO0. Varadero le Stoma Tuedar Lamber Co, 46 Phi 170 MGmanvel on Evidence, 91-1992 Bap. 61, 14 See Sen, 21, Hule 180, Holes of Gout at amended; Poople vi Called, 138 SCRA Se. SS vs Magu, 27 Phil #, 37US, vo Torres, 84 Pil 64, 988 ‘The otter of compromse having. been in effect made by appllat, who ws then repent the same constatn an pied stason of git under Se. 24 (now Sex 21) ff Rule 180. ‘While tis tro offense may be compromised (Art 9, lst paragraph, ‘evlsed Penal Gods), in tho Particular Ineancy the offer, which ‘vas. made men fhe easy wes Steady pesding’ i court, war for s monetary consideration and 10 mmaray the offended pattr, Pople ee Ames, 37 SCRA #18 Th the centrontatin between bin sod the’ complinant before Barsio Captain ‘Torres, he tpade no dete of the rape char leveled nguin him. So macho that iEntry oy of fang tod ato the Gna aen Ho ere preptoed to have ‘appellant sarey complaint If the complainant: chargo ras merely tht of Naving been Msedy We see no eaioh Su to why sch © woamental