Implied admission by silence

May implied admission by latches din ha, flight, concealment, attempt to influence the witness, unreasonable refusal of
plaintiff to submit himself to physical examination in case of damages arising from injury, sudden change in financial
condition

Are implied admissions absolute? No. Its all subj to explanation

Kaya if a person took time to file a case, parang laches na, peding magexplain na kase kaya nadelay kasi nathreaten sya..

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE

Sec 29
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided
*this sec 29, has relation to sec 27 “Admission of a party. – The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
fact may be given in evidence against him or her ONLY”
*ano nga ulit ang situation sa sec 27? Its an act, declaration or omission made extrajudicially, made outside heard by
another. This another is the witness “I heard him say this”. Is that admissible against the one who made the admission?
Yes because an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her
ONLY. But If sinabi ng witness “I heard him say na sya ang pumatay tas and his companions daw in the crime are A, B and
C ”. Is the declaration admissible against the one who made the admission? Yes, that’s Sec 27. Is the declaration
admissible against A. B and C? No kase sec 29 “The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided”

Are there exceptions to this RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE?

Sec 30
There is, between the party making the admission and the party against whom the admission is offered
1. The relation of partnership, agency or joint interest (Sec. 30)
2. There is a relationship of conspiracy (Sec. 31)
3. Where privity exist (Sec. 32)

Lets go to these exceptions

Sec 29 na muna ulit..

1st case is..

People vs. Tena, 215 SCRA 43, October 21, 1992

* An 82 y/o man found dead in his room. several jewelry and cash were missing sa room
*suspect, Camota, executed extrajudicial confession admitting participation sa crime and pointed to Virgilio Conde, Jose
de Jesus, Solito Tena and an unidentified person as his companions in the crime. These 4 people were convicted
* During trial, there was no eyewitness to the commission of the crime. The judgment of conviction was based chiefly on
the extrajudicial confession of accused Adelberto Camota
*Only Tena appealed. He centered attack on admission by the court of Camota’s confession.
*SC said u cant do that because of RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
*ano basis ng rule na ito? That the rights of a party cant be prejudiced by act, declaration or omission of another.
*On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence
against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly
unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by
the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him
*see recording 13:09
*kay Camota lang admissible ang confession nya ha. Its unjust for a man to be bound by the acts of strangers. Kase
hearsay! The admission of Camota cant be admissible against Virgilio Conde, Jose de Jesus, Solito Tena
*ung witness na nagtestify sa admission ni camota with regard kay Conde, de Jesus and Tena ay hearsay lang. not based
on personal knowledge.
*can u apply here exception under sec 31 (conspiracy)? Check requisites.. eto kelan ginawa ni camota ang declaration?
After the crime was already done. Not during existence of conspiracy. Tpos na ang crime. Ineenvestigate na sila

In order for admission of a partner to be received in evidence against co-partner, the requisites are:
Sec 30
REQUISITES (PARTNERSHIP)
1. The partnership must be established by independent of evidence (evidence separate from the act or declaration itself
by the partner)
2. The statement must refer to a matter within the scope of the partnership (if agency then within scope of authority) or
within the scope of the co-partner
3. The extrajudicial admission to bind a co-partner must be made during the existence of the partnership (not after or
before)

Kapag agency..
Requisites
1. That the agency is established by evidence other than the declaration of the agent himself.
2. The statement must refer to a matter within the scope of the agency or must be within the authority given by the
principal.
3. The statement must refer to a matter authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject or a matter
within the scope of the agent
4. The statement was made during the existence of the agency

In application of rules on agency ano example?

Ex: atty-client – all matters in litigation the client is bound by the acts of the lawyer. Pag nagkamali lawyer sa procedure,
it binds the client. Pero may exceptions dito ha, generally speaking lang.
Ex: relationship of husband and wife in all matters in the community property

REQUISITES (JOINT OWNER/JOINT DEBTOR):

1. The joint interest must be established by evidence independent of the act or declaration
2. The statement must refer to a matter within the scope of the Joint Interest
3. The statement must be made during the existence of the joint interest

Generally when we speak of joint interest ano ito? The interest is in solidum (jointly and severally)
Ex: That of a principal and surety, under the article 1827 Civil Code
*don’t apply to joint tort feasors. (refer to article 2194 of CC)

Conspiracy..
Sec 31
REQUISITES:
1. The conspiracy must be established by independent evidence other than act or declaration of conspirator.
2. The statement must refer to the purpose or object of the conspiracy (kaya it states in furtherance of conspiracy)
3. The statement must be made during the existence of the conspiracy.

Lets deal with cases

People vs. Alegre G.R. No. L-30423 November 7, 1979, 84 S 105

*Adelina Sajo strangled to death. No witnesses actually saw the commission of the crime
*Alegre rented a room in the house of Sajo. And taken for questioning but later released
*One Cudillan was found with the jewelry of Sajo while pawning it. Pinaexplain sya pano nya nakuha ang jewelry?
*Cudillan admitted that he was involved in the killing of Sajo. (extrajudicial confession before police). He also implicated
other people kasama na si Alegre and narrated in detail ung participation ng crime (while he was making such confession
andun din si Alegre)
*on basis of extrajudicial confession nafile ng case against Alegre
*evidence to prove guilt of alegre is testimony of Sgt sla of the Pasay police testified that when Cudillan identified the
appellants as the perpetrators, they just stared at him and said nothing.
*appellants contend that the EJC is not admissible against Alegre
*SC said tama. extrajudicial confessions of Cudillan on the basis of which the trial court was able to reconstruct how
Cudillan committed the crime in question, cannot be used as evidence and are not competent proof against appellants
Alegre and Medalla, under the principle of "res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet" there being no independent
evidence of conspiracy. (unless all elements of conspiracy are there).
*dito statement was made after existence of conspiracy
*As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not admissible and does
not have probative value against his co-- accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are
concerned.
*was there implied admission by silence? Kase db nung tinuro sila ni Cudillan wala naman sinabe sina Alegre. NO!!!! kase
they were exercising their privilege. Ano privilege ng accused during custodial investigation? The right to remain silent.
*it was not proper for alegre to answer kase it would incriminate him!!

People v. Raquel G.R. No. 119005, December 2, 1996

*victim, Agapito, Gambalan answered the door, thinking of a neighbor in need. Instead, heavily armed men came
through the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at him. Upon hearing the gunshots, Agapito’s wife, Juliet, went
out of their room and found his lifeless body while a man took Agapito’s gun and left hurriedly with the others
*a certain George Jovillano responded to Juliet’s plea for help and reported the incident to the police, who found Amado
Ponce, one of the accused, wounded and lying near the Gambalan’s house. Agapito was able to fire back din kase.
Natamaan din si Ponce.
*Ponce revealed to the police that Sabas and Valeriano (Raquel brothers) were the perpetrators of the crime and that
they may be found in their residence. The Raquels were later apprehended on different occasions. The trial court found
all the accused guilty of the crime.
*Can the extrajudicial statement of Ponce pointing at the Raquels as his co-perpetrators of the crime be used as a basis
to convict them? NO
*The extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against the latter, unless they
are repeated in open court. (only basis ng pagconvict ay ang extrajudicial confession).
*racquels never had the opportunity to cross-examine their co-accused on the latter’s extrajudicial statements, the
same are hearsay as against said Racquels
*statement here was made during C.I (made outside the court.. extrajudicial)
*kaya dapat may distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions.
*Sec 29 should be read in relation to sec 27. Sec 27 always relates to an extrajudicial admission kase if judicial no more
proof, need not present evidence
*EJC deprives the accused of the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant. JC his confession is thrown wide open for
cross-examination and rebuttal. EJC binding only on confessant. Reason? Go back to basis on Tena.
*SC said, Except for Ponce’s extrajudicial statement, there exists no evidence linking the Raquels to the crime
*Said statement was also made in violation of the constitutional rights (miranda rights) of Ponce, as admitted in the
testimony of the investigating officer. Dito Ponce was not afforded counsel. while right to counsel may be waived it must
be made always with assistance of counsel

Distinguish this from case of People v. Serrano 105 P 531

*Eulogio Serrano told Cenon Serrano, and other co-accused that Pablo Navarro (victim) had been prompting people to
go to Senator Pablo Angeles David and testify on the Maliwalu massacre. So gusto nila eliminate si Navarro.
*Eulogio instructed the others to wait for Navarro in Bacolor, lure him to go with them to barrio Dolores and there kill
him. The accused waited for Navarro, then invited him to drink, after which, they went to Dolores, Bacolor, with the
already drunk Navarro. There, they tied Navarro and accused him of bringing witnesses to the house of Senator David to
testify on the Maliwalu massacre
*When he denied the charge, they began beating him up. Later, he was shot to death and his body was shoved into a pit
and covered with earth. Another man, Simplicio Manguerra, was also killed and buried in a pit.
*Upon motion of prosecutor, isa sa mga accused, Reyes was discharged to testify as a witness for the prosecution (state
witness). On the basis of testimony of reyes, the other accused were found guilty
*appellants claim na testimony of Reyes should not be admitted in evidence against them kase daw para ma apply ung
exception as regard conspiracy, such conspiracy must be shown by independent evidence. They were arguing na other
than the declaration of Reyes, no independent evidence to show existence of conspiracy. Tama ba un?
*SC said, mali kayo kase ung sec 31 na exception applies only if act/declaration of conspirator is done extrajudicially.
Here Reyes was in court testifying as a state witness.
*How do you account for the fact that there was no independent evidence to prove conspiracy? That is required only
when the statement was made EXTRAJUDICIALLY. You don’t even apply res inter alios acta anymore! You can now
cross examine!
*the admissions made by Reyes as state witness during the trial is already a judicial admission and no longer an
extrajudicial admission covered by Sec. 30.
*don’t apply sec 29 and 31

People vs. Cabrera G.R. No. L-37398. June 28, 1974

*police received info na may person abandoned in NLEX and confined at hospital. victim was Lui dela cruz suffering from
stab wounds. Luis dela Cruz, who gave an ante-mortem statement naming Rosario Cabrera as the person who hired his
jeep kaso d nya kilala sino pa ung three unidentified men who stabbed him and took his money and jeep.
*The next morning, Cabrera was arrested, and two days later, executed an extra-judicial confession, pointing to Conrado
Villanueva as the mastermind of the robbery. defendants here did not present any evidence and did not take witness
stand
*is EJC of Cabrera be admissible against Villanueva? No
*SC noted that Cabrera’s inculpatory statements were made during the investigation conducted by the Valenzuela police
two days after the date of the incident in question. Such declaration of conspirator cannot be admissible against
coconspirator. Said statement was not made during the existence of the alleged conspiracy between her and Villanueva,
but after said supposed conspiracy had already ceased and when she was already in the hands of the authorities
*isa sa mga requisites ay when declaration was made during existence of conspiracy. Statement made 2 days after
incident

People v. Yatco G.R. No. L-9181, November 28, 1955

*Juan Consunji, Alfonso Panganiban and another unknown individual (John Doe), were charged with having conspired
together in the murder of Jose Ramos. During the trial, as the prosecution was questioning a witness, Atty. Arturo Xavier
of NBI to testify on the EJC made by Consunji, panganiban’s lawyer objected sa evidence on ground na its hearsay kaya
inadmissible sya against Panganiban.
*TC ordered the exclusion of the evidence objected to on the ground that the prosecution could not be permitted to
introduce the confessions of Consunji and Panganiban to prove conspiracy between them, without prior proof of such
conspiracy by a number of definite acts, conditions, and circumstances. (walang conspiracy by independent evidence)
*Was the extrajudicial statement of Consunji properly excluded from the evidence? NO
*SC said, confession of consunji is admissible consunji but not against Panganiban
*dapat TC should not have all together excluded the evidence. Partially admitted dapat and partially sustained objection
dapat
*Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if Consunji’s confession may not be admissible as against his
co-accused Panganiban, being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy
being established by other evidence, the confession of Consunji was, nevertheless, admissible as evidence of his own
guilt, and should have been admitted as such.
*As for the rule in Sec 31, the rule refers to statements made by one conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful
enterprises and in furtherance of its object, and not to a confession made, as in this case, long after the conspiracy had
been brought to an end.

what is multiple admissibility? Means evidence w/c is relevant and competent for 2 or more purposes. When this
happens, such evidence will be admitted if it satisfies all rqmts for law in order na admissibe sya for at least 1 purpose.
its presented even if did not satisfy requisites admissibility for other purposes.

People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, G.R. No. L-19590, April 25, 1968
*is the confessions made by Alvarez admissible against Mr Chua? No
*ang pinatay dito ay si Crisostomo. dun sa car may nakita silang check drawn by Alvarez in favor of Crisostomo with
further statement na may unpaid balance pa. suspecting na may kinalaman si Alvarez sa crime, he made a tape recorded
statement na he alone shot Crisostomo
*next day, Alvarez executed a handwritten statement in narrative form. In this statement, he affirmed that a certain
Johnny was the one who shot and killed Crisostomo in Marilao, Bulacan. On the same day, Alvarez made another
statement in the form of questions and answers repeating substantially the facts contained in his handwritten
statement.
*Still on the next day, Alvarez executed another statement before Capt. Rafael Yapdiangco of the PC, wherein Alvarez
again admitted that he was the only one who shot and killed Crisostomo. In this statement, Alvarez gave a detailed
narration of the participation of George Chua (engaged in dollar smuggling) in the commission of the crime.
*so complaint filed against Alvarez and lahat na pinangalanan nya
*Capt Yapdiangco investigated Chua in presence of CIS and made statement na sya ang nagorder ng killing kay
Crisostomo.
*were statements made by Alvarez admissible against Chua? NO
*The Court held that conspiracy must be proved by independent evidence other than the confession. The admissibility
of a confession by one accused against the other in the same case, must relate to statements made by one conspirator
during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise (or during its existence) and in furtherance of its objects, and not to a
confession made, as in this case long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end.
*mga sinabe ni Alvarez ay hearsay as against chua. Tapos no overt act ni chua showing na part sya ng conspiracy tapos
such statement made after existence of conspiracy

Other cases regarding partnership.. agency

Ormachea Tin-Congco v. Trillana, G.R. No. 4776. March 18, 1909

*Ormachea and trillana were partners. Lopez was the manager of the partnership business.
*trillana made several vales (advances/utang) from the partnership which he was unable to pay until the dissolution of
partnership. Ormachea, one of the partners, brought an action saying that Trillana has not yet paid his debt
*trillana claimed that he already paid debts to the partnership and showed a document that there was a letter made by
Lopez showing that defendant no longer had debts with the partnership.
*kaso this statement was made by Lopez 2 yrs after sya nagresign bilang manager. Statement made NOT during the
EXISTENCE of the partnership.
*After the close of the business, the management and administration of which was entrusted to a certain person, and
after the expiration of two years from the date of his withdrawal, he could not legally issue a document or warrant
which would fully exempt the debtor from the payment of a debt existing in favor of the proprietors and said business or
of the partner to whom the credits claimed to have been extinguished may belong, because he had no authority for such
an act.

Kiel v. Estate of PS Sabert, G.R. No. 21639, September 25, 1924

*kiel and sabert entered into agreement and will share in expenses and profit equally. kaso agreement not reduced to
writing. This action is to recover P20,000 from the estate of Subert regarding the partnership. The question was whether
there was actually a partnership.
* Without considering the testimony of plaintiff, would it be sufficient to sustain the contention that there is a
partnership? NO
*remember dapat partnership established by independent evidence other than the declaration of the plaintiff.
* The declarations of one partner, not made in the presence of his copartner, are not competent to prove the existence
of a partnership between them as against such other partner, and that the existence of a partnership cannot be
established by general reputation, rumor, or hearsay
* It is required that the partnership itself must be proven by independent evidence other than the act or declaration of a
partner

Sa conspiracy remember ha, act of one is act of all

Another exception
Sec 32 – privies
*ano ibig sabihin nito? Whatever act, declaration or omission made by the predecessor in interest while holding title to
property is admissible against the successor in interest.
*kunware A made declaration then somebody heard it then A transferred prop to X. Can admission of A be used as
evidence against X? Yes.

Alpuerto v. Pastor, 38 P 785

*Alpuerto and Pastor are both claiming title to three parcels of land formerly owned by Llenos. Alpuerto said na nakuha
nya property from Llenos under sale with pacto de retro. Pastor naman says na he is a purchaser at a public auction
under execution sale against Llenos.
*Alpuerto claim na by virtue of the sale he acquired title sa land. pastor claimed na the transaction by which Alpuerto
claims to have acquired title was simulated or fictitious and that the supposed conveyance was effected for the purpose
of defrauding Pastor as creditor of Llenos.
*Pastor asked the court to declare him as the true owner of the property and to order Alpuerto to surrender possession
to him
*was the sale made by Llenos is that binding upon Pastor who brought property in auction sale? Yes
*the act of executing a sale while Llenos was holding title is binding upon successor in interest, Pastor
* Article 1225 declares that a private document legally recognized shall have, with regard to those who sign it and their
privies, the same force as a public instrument.
* The term “privies,” meanwhile, denotes the idea of succession, not only by right of heirship and testamentary legacy,
but also that of succession by singular title, derived from acts inter vivos, and for special purposes; hence, an assignee of
a credit, and one subrogated to it will be privies.
* In short, he who by succession is placed in the position of one of those who contracted the juridical relation and
executed the private document and appears to be substituting him in his personal rights and obligations is a privy.
*Here, Pastor, the purchaser at a public sale under an execution directed against Llenos, must be considered a privy or
successor in interest of the execution debtor. He is therefore undoubtedly bound by the instrument which conveyed the
property to Alpuerto, and this from the date of the execution of that instrument as a private document.

City of Manila v. Del Rosario G.R. No. 1284, November 10, 1905
*Lorenzo has a brother, jacinto. Lorenzo acquired 2 lots. Such ownership was contested by MNL. To prove ownership of
MNL, nagpresent ng letter made by Lorenzo Sept 1891 and 2 nd letter ay 1901. (offer to MNL to buy the property and 2 nd
letter admitting na MNL owned the lots)
*Lorenzo predecessor in interest, Jacinto – successor
*does the letter bind Jacinto?
*Lorenzo admitted writing the 1891 letter He admitted also that he signed the document on the misapprehension that
the land belonged to the city, but that he had been subsequently informed by some of the city officials that the land
belonged to Cipriano.
*is the 1st letter admissible against brother jacinto? NO. Lorenzo signed it before he acquired ownership.
*eh ung 2nd letter? No. because it was written by Lorenzo at the time he was not anymore holding title to the property.
So such act will not bind Jacinto. Binenta kase kay kapatid on 1893.
*whatever statements ni Lorenzo are not binding upon defendant kase under sec 278, statements of prior are binding
only when holding title kapa to the property.
* For the admission to be binding, it must be made while the predecessor-in-interest is the holder of the title. In this
case, the first letter was written by Lorenzo before he acquired the land from the City of Manila while the second letter
was written by him after he has conveyed the land to Jacinto. Therefore, when Lorenzo wrote both letters, he was not
yet and no longer the holder of the title over the subject property.

CONFESSION
-in a criminal case admitting ur guilt
-also done extrajudicially
Sec 34
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him or her.
-no need to prove, no need to present it as evidence

Ex: sinabi mo sa friend mo na pinatay mo si A. Can the listener testify? Yes.

Pp v. Marra, G.R. No. 108494 September 20, 1994

*mara was convicted of Murder. At about 3:45 am of Mar 7 1992, SPO De Vera received report about shooting incident.
So they made their investigation and were informed that a man who killed is wearing polo shirt of security guard
uniform. when they saw security guard of bus company tinanong nila if may alam sya unusual incident and sabe nya may
Nakita daw syang guard ng restaurant chasing 2 men.
*tinuro nya ang isang guy na kumakain sa carenderia and they questioned ung kumakain na guy. This Mara said na nasa
bahay ung baril. They went sa house and binigay kay SPO and was still smelling gun powder and asked baket nya binarily.
Sabe ni Mara self-defense daw. During trial De Vera testified as to the confession of Marra. Such testimony was objected
to because Mara was not informed of her miranda rights because at that time, she was already in C.I as argued.
*The testimony of De Vera is admissible against Mara.
*In the case at bar, appellant was not under custodial investigation when he made the admission. There was no coercion
whatsoever to compel him to make such a statement. Indeed, he could have refused to answer questions from the very
start when the policemen requested that they all go to his residence. The police inquiry had not yet reached a level
wherein they considered him as a particular suspect. They were just probing into a number of possibilities, having been
merely informed that the suspect was wearing what could be a security guard's uniform.
* Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases
to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into
custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that
the rule begins to operate.
*In addition, the law provides that the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of
any offense necessarily included therein may be given in evidence against him and, in certain circumstances, this
admission may be considered as part of the res gestae.

People v Kumpil 244 SCRA

*not assisted by counsel
* right to counsel starts at C.I

Another case
--pinare-enact ung crime.. how did u commit the crime?
-appellant arrested w/o warrant of arrest and just based on circumstantial evidence tas binugbog daw sya ng mga police
para magadmit sya
*he was not informed of his right to remain silent

People v. Maqueda 241 scra 565

*READ THIS CASE!!!

People v Encipido 146 scra G.R. 70091

*accused even proud na napatay nya ung victim kase witch daw ang victim
*ayun sinabi sa mayor pinatay daw nya ung victim kase witch
*such confession WAS ADMISSIBLE
Admissions given to the media
Admissible yes?

People v Endino
*case moto so alam mo ito

People v. Abulencia 363 S 496

*interview made in radio. He was interviewed by Mojares, a radio commentator of Bombo Radio. Mojares’ testimony
lends support to the finding of guilty. It has been held that “a confession to a radio reporter is admissible where it was
not shown that said reporter was acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where
it is apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing out of fear.”

Chua v. People, 349 SCRA

*not assisted by counsel

Rule on interlocking confessions

*if marame co accused and made confession and same in material points, can one confession be used against another in
a conspiracy suit? Yes. if interlocking meaning they corroborate in its essential or material points. But it may only be
used as corroborative evidence.
*so if may EJC made by 3 accused and similar in its material points, and they corroborated, can be used as corroborative
evidence

People v Sumayo 70 scra

*taxi driver stabbed to death in robbery hold up. group of persons na lasing ang perpetrators
*sa confessions that they made, the EJC all were executed voluntarily and admissible even as corroborative evidence.
Guilty even if they planned to rob only and not to kill. Admissible against accused on basis of interlocking confessions
* The statements in Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “F” are consistent in many material details, persistently so if we may say, and
they are admissible against the accused on the doctrine of interlocking confessions as corroborative evidence. Kanya
kanyang confession. They are consistent in material points. Although it may not be used against the other, it may be
used to corroborate the confession of the others.
*they cited case of People v condemena 23 scra

Previous Conduct as Evidence

Sec 35
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do
the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like
*a previous conduct can’t be used in evidence to prove that u committed the 2 nd act
Ex: caught ka for theft. Then in another case.theft ulit.. can conviction of theft be use to prove subsequent theft? No
Just because you did it the first time, that does not mean you did it the second time

Can it still be received as evidence? Yes

It can still be received in evidence to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom
or usage, and the like.
Ex: In serial killers, there is a manner by which they do the killing. Like slitting throats, but this is just to prove pattern.
US v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 8132, March 25, 1913
*Accused was convicted of arson or a fire which broke out in his store in June 2. Witnesses were presented to prove that
previous to June 2, or on May 31, an alarm was also turned for a fire of suspicious origin in the piano store adjacent to
the building occupied by the accused. Evidence of such incident relating to the May 31 incident was objected to by the
accused on the ground of Rule 130, Sec. 34
*SC said while it was not the fire charged in the information, and does not by any means amount to direct evidence
against the accused, it was competent to prove the intent of the accused in setting the fire which was charged in the
information.
*may initial attempt on his part to already commit arson on May 31.
*In People vs Shainwold: On a trial for arson, the prosecution may prove that the prisoner had attempted to set fire to
the house on a day previous to the burning alleged in the indictment, for the purpose of showing the intent of the
prisoner in subsequently setting fire to the house

US v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858, January 22, 1918

*offended party went sa drugstore ng accused to buy potassium chlorate and binigyan sya nun but it turned out na ang
binigay pala sa kanya barium chlorate (poison) labeled potassium chlorate. nung binigay na ung drug sa mga horse
namatay ung horse. 2 chemists went sa drugstore to buy potassium chlorate and they analyzed it and they found na
hindi talaga sya potassium chlorate.
*admissible ba testimony ng 2 chemists na ito? Yes.
*SC said, what the appellant is here relying on is the maxim res inter alios acta. As a general rule, the evidence of other
offenses committed by a defendant is inadmissible. But appellant has confused this maxim with this rule with certain
exceptions thereto.
* The effort is not to convict the accused of a second offense. Nor is there an attempt to draw the mind away from the
point at issue and thus to prejudice defendant's case
* The purpose is to ascertain defendant's knowledge and intent, and to fix his negligence. If the defendant has on more
than one occasion performed similar acts, accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is intensified, and
fraudulent intent may even be established. It has been said that there is no better evidence of negligence than the
frequency of accidents.
*purpose is to ascertain intent ni def and fix his negligence.

Identity
People vs. Irang, G.R. No. 45179, March 30, 1937
*7 individuals with white stripes on their faces robbed and killed victim. widow gave info that the person who struck her
as well with a but of a gun, which she remembers to have pockmarks.
* That same night, the house of Juana was assaulted by malefactors. All of the assailants had white stripes upon their
faces and dela Cruz noticed one of them had pockmarks and scar on the left eyelid and was dressed in a maong-colored
suit. Juana testified na she was assaulted on same night by people with white stripes on their faces and isa sa kanila with
pockmarks and a scar on his eyelid. the description fitted the accused
*SC said, while evidence of another crime (that committed against neighbor), as a general rule, is not admissible in a
prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the
perpetrator of the robbery charged or tends to show his presence at the scene of the crime at the time charged, or
when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with a crime.
*may scheme (check nga ito) 2:36:00

Sec 36
Santos v. Fernando
*where plaintiff offered in writing to repurchase which def rejected. No need for plaintiff to make an actual tender of
money kase the written offer is equivalent to tender. The offer in writing if rejected need not be produced. (sec 36)

Recall consignation in Art 1256 CC

HEARSAY RULE
Sec 37
Whats hearsay? Hearsay is a statement (who made it?) other than one made by the declarant (one who has actual
knowledge) while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
Whats meaning of statement? A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it
is intended by him or her as an assertion.
*Rule is a witness can only testify on those facts of which personal knowledge (based on perception thru 5 senses). So a
qualification for witness is that you have the capacity to perceive, and you can make known your perception
-if r testifying in court of what is perceived by other then hearsay!

Not admissible kase it derives its value not from the credit given by the witness but by the veracity of knowledge of
some other person who has actual knowledge

Hearsay is not limited to oral testimonies. Also applicable to writings

* Ex: You are testifying on a letter but the one who has personal knowledge on the letter is not in court. That is hearsay.

Hearsay is not admissible because it violates the right of the parties to cross examine the person who has personal
knowledge
* Purpose: to preserve the right of parties to cross examine the original person / witness claiming to have personal
knowledge of the transaction or occurrence in question

2:56;00

* The right to cross examine the adverse party is ESSENTIAL in the administration of justice à it is a right granted by the
Constitution
*Means to test the credibility of witnesses and their testimony
*but if the person who has actual knowledge is in court, ung state witness diba cant invoke res inter alios acta rule kase
d naman EJC, and may personal knowledge ung state witness and u can cross examine the state witness

Ex of hearsay
1. Testimony of witness of what he has heard another person say about the fact in dispute
2. Affidavits – hearsay yan, but in certain instances admissible
3. Letter offered in evidence to establish a fact in issue
*letter offered in evidence to establish a fact in issue.. sa people v carlos: Carlos killed doctor. Case where wife wrote a
letter to husband. Although the letter from the wife is considered privileged communication, but when it reaches the
hands of third person, the police, then the third person can testify although it remains privileged between the spouse.
Nonetheless, it is INADMISSIBLE on the ground that it is hearsay. The one who has personal knowledge is the wife and
not the police.
* Also in Krohn v. CA, husband filed action against wife for psychological incapacity. During trial, pinresent ung
psychiatric reports of wife. Case ng Privilege communication between physician and patient. However, when that
communication is obtained by a third party, that party can testify. But as to probative value, that is hearsay.
4. Medical certificates to the extent of the injury found by the doctor on the offended party’s body
* the doctor should testify (ex: physical injuries – doctor must testify)

Ano effect ng lack of objection to hearsay?

-waiver of the right to cross examine
-waiver sa admissibility

The mere fact na admissible ang evid doesn’t mean na credible ha.

However, the rules here says, if offered to prove the truth of facts asserted , hearsay.
Ano theory ng hearsay rule?
-when human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted in it, then the credit of the assertor
becomes basis of inference,
--see 3:29;00