ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

SECTION 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.

- An Admission is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or

unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts
alleged by him. It may be express or implied.
o Express – made in definite, certain, and unequivocal language.
o Implied – inferred from the acts, declarations, or omission of a party. Therefore,
an admission may be inferred from conduct, statement of silence.
- Requisites for admissibility of Confession
o Involve matters of fact and not of law
o Must be categorical and definite
o Knowingly and voluntarily made
o Must be adverse to the admitter’s interests, otherwise it would be self-serving
and inadmissible
- Effect of Admission – act, declaration, or omission is admissible as evidence
- Admission vis-à-vis Confession
o SECTION 34. Confession - 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.
o Requisites for Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession
 Involve an express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt
 Facts admitted must constitute an offense
 Intelligently made, voluntary and free from compulsion
 No violation of Constitutional Safeguards.
Admission Confession
Act, declaration or omission of a Declaration of an accused
party as to a relevant fact. It is a acknowledging his guilt of the offense
voluntary acknowledgment made by charged, or of any offense necessarily
a party of the existence of the truth included therein. It is a statement by
of certain facts which are the accused that he engaged in
inconsistent with his claims in an conduct which constitutes the crime.
action Thus, when a person admits to
shooting the victim but denies
criminal intent in doing so, such
statement is merely an admission,
not a confession.
Acknowledgment of facts which Acknowledgment of guilt
although incriminating falls short of
admission of guilt.
Merely a statement of fact not
 directly involving an
acknowledgment of guilt or
criminal intent
Includes confessions since Specific type of admission which
“admission” is the broader term refers only to an acknowledgment of
because confession is a specific type guilt.
of admission by the accused of the
charge against him

May be implied Cannot be implied. Must be a

voluntary, direct and positive
acknowledgement of guilt, which
cannot be merely inferred or implied.
May be Judicial or Extrajudicial
- Judicial vis-à-vis Extrajudicial admission
Judicial Admission Extrajudicial Admission
Those made in the course of the Those made out of court or in a
proceeding in the same case judicial proceeding other than the
one under consideration
Do not require proof and may be Regarded as evidence and must be
contradicted only by showing that it offered as such otherwise, court will
was made through palpable mistake not consider it in deciding a case.
or that no admission was made.
Need not be offered in evidence since Requires formal offer for it to be
it is not evidence (it takes place of considered.
evidence). Shall be considered by the
court as established.
Conclusive upon the person Rebuttable
admitting
Admissible even if self-serving Not-admissible if self-serving
Subject to cross-examination Not subject to cross-examination

- Judicial v. Extrajudicial Confession of Guilt

Judicial Confession Extra-judicial Confession

Plea of Guilt or voluntary admission Pertains to confession obtained
in open court outside of court with due regard to
constitutional and substantive law in
order to be admissible.
May sustain a conviction. Does not Not sufficient for conviction. Requires
require evidence of Corpus Delicti to be corroborated by evidence of the
corpus delicti
Admissible against the confessant May be given in evidence against the
and the co-accused since the latter is confessant but not against the co-
 given opportunity to cross-examine. accused as they are deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine.

o Corpus Delicti – body of the crime or offense. The actual commission of the
crime and someone criminally responsible therefor. It is the substance of the
crime; the fact that a crime has actually been committed
o Corpus delicti has two elements:
 (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event —for example, that a man
has died or a building has been burned; and
 (2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act
o Corpus delicti, and all the elements thereof, may be proved by circumstantial
evidence but such proof must be convincing and compatible with the nature of
the case.
o If the body of the victim is not found, how would the extrajudicial confession be
treated?
 Still admissible. If derived during custodial investigation, it must be
reduced to writing and signed by the accused in the presence of counsel,
or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any
of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal
mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
minister of the gospel as chosen by him; IOW, such shall be inadmissible
in evidence. (See R.A. 7438).
 Exceptions to confessions derived from custodial investigation where the
constitutional safeguards do not apply such as voluntary, candid, and
spontaneous confessions before the media or persons other than law
enforcement agents e.g. the mayor is also admissible.
 The traditional “spontaneous statement” as an exception to the
Miranda warning contemplates of a situation where the
spontaneous statement is made before the person is placed under
custody or before he is arrested.
 Anytime before the arrest, there is no occasion to speak of Miranda
warning or CI. Now, because of People v Andan, spontaneous
statements made by the person while under custody can still be a
spontaneous statement which is an exception to the Miranda
warning.
 Hence, Miranda warning applies only if these 2 concur: (1) the
person is placed under custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action, and (2) the statements must be given in answer
to police questions.
 Absence of police questioning, even if he is already under detention
is not covered by the Miranda warning. Note that as provided
under RA 7438, the constitutional safeguards extend to police
invitations. Thus, at such moment the suspect may not be in any
manner arrested, detained, or physically restrained.
  In a case of murder or homicide, there need not be direct evidence of the
body of the victim. It is not necessary to recover the body of the victim or
show where it can be found. It is enough that the death and the criminal
agency causing death is proven. The element of death in the corpus
delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence.

SECTION 28. Offer of Compromise Not Admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of

compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against
the offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations
admissible, except evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as
proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving
an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those

allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is any
statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not
result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.

An offer to pay[,] or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an

injury[,] is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
(27a)

Offer of Compromise in Civil Case v. Criminal Case

Civil Case Criminal Case
It is not an admission of any liability and G.R. maybe received in evidence as implied
not admissible against the offeror admission of guilt. No distinction between
extrajudicial or judicial offer of compromise;
XPN: 1. evidence otherwise discoverable or; both can be considered implied admission
2. offered for another purpose e.g. proving of guilt.
bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
contention of undue delay, or proving an XPN:
effort to obstruct criminal investigation or 1. In Quasi-offenses when there is no
prosecution. criminal intent (negligence) such as
reckless imprudence
Why not admissible in civil cases? 2. In Criminal Cases allowed to be
For the reason that parties are encouraged compromised:
to enter into compromises. Courts should a. NIRC (Sec 7c) – CIR has the power to
endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil compromise on minor criminal violations as
case to agree upon some fair compromise may be determined by the Secretary of
 (Art. 2029 NCC). During pre-trial, courts Finance.
should encourage parties to enter into b. LGC (Sec. 408) – Allowed in Minor
amicable settlement. offenses whose penalties do not exceed 1
year
c. RPC (Art 266-C) – In case of marital rape,
where subsequent forgiveness by the wife
extinguishes the criminal action or penalty.

Note: Offer of one not authorized by the

accused cannot be considered an implied
admission of guilt.

Cases not allowed to be compromised

1. Civil Status of Persons
2. Validity of a marriage or legal separation
3. Any ground for legal separation
4. Future Support
5. Jurisdiction of courts
6. Future Legitime
7. Habeas Corpus
8. Election Cases

If offer of compromise was not given by the accused, it may still be admitted in evidence
against him if it was (a) made by a person authorized; or (b) made with knowledge or
consent or acquiescence of the accused.

If offer of compromise is accepted in a criminal case does it extinguish criminal liability?

No. Compromise is not a ground for extinguishment of liability arising from a crime which
by nature constitutes a public offense committed against the People and which must be
prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion even though complete
reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended party. (People v.
Benitez, 59 O.G. 1407). However, in the offenses of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape punishable under the RPC, marriage of the offender with the
offended party shall extinguish criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon
him. Thus, from a practical standpoint, the marriage is a consequence of a compromise
agreement between the parties. An offer of marriage which is rejected should not entail an
implied admission of guilt.
NOTE: There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from an offense; but such
compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty
(NCC, Art. 2034)

Plea of Guilty Later Withdrawn or Unaccepted Plea of Guilty:

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense,
is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is any
statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not
result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.

Offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses:

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
This act of rendering aid is sometimes called the “Good Samaritan Rule” which is used to
refer to the rendering of voluntary aid to the suffering.

Offer or Plea Admissibility

Plea of Guilty later withdrawn Inadmissible against the accused who made
the plea
Offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense but Inadmissible against the accused who made
unaccepted by the prosecution. the offer
Offer to pay or payment of medical, Inadmissible as proof of civil or criminal
hospital, or other expenses occasioned by liability for the injury.
injury.

Subsequent Remedial Measures:

Example: A, a lessee of one of the rooms in a century old apartment building, suffered head
injuries after a piece of the ceiling fell on him while he was sleeping. Afterwards, the owner
of the building made certain renovations and improvements on the said property
particularly the materials used for the ceiling. If A would file an action for damages against
the owner, would the subsequent remedial measure be admissible in evidence?

No direct legal provision in the PH. The U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence provides: “When
after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event
less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove
negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the
exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as
proving ownership, control or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or
impeachment.” The policy of such rule is to encourage defendants to remedy hazardous
conditions without fear of legal repercussions from their actions.

Res Inter Alios Acta Rule and the Exceptions

FIRST BRANCH

GENERAL RULE EXCEPTIONS:

SECTION 29. Admission by Third Party. SECTION 30. Admission by Co-Partner or Agent .
— The rights of a party cannot be — The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized
by the party to make a statement concerning the subject,
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
or within the scope of his or her authority[,] and during the
omission of another, except as hereinafter existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in
provided. (28) evidence against such party after the partnership or
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the party. (29a)

SECTION 31. Admission by Conspirator. — The

act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the
conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
(30a)

SECTION 32. Admission by Privies. — Where one

derives title to property from another, the latter's act,
declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former [if done] while the latter was
holding the title. (31a)

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. (32a)

Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them. First
branch holds that whatever one says or does or omits to do should only affect him but
should not affect or prejudice others.

The above rule has reference only to extrajudicial declarations. Statements made in open
court by a witness implicating persons, aside from his own judicial admissions, are
admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.

An extrajudicial confession or admission is admissible only against said accused, but is

inadmissible against the other accused. But, if the declarant or admitter repeats in court
his extrajudicial admission, and the other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-
examine the admitter, the admissible is admissible against both accused because then, it
becomes a judicial admission.

Bar questions:
1. Kuku was engaged in the buy and sale of stolen jewelry. When he was apprehended for
violation of the Anti-Fencing Decree, the prosecution presented Karl, the accused in the
previous criminal case for theft who admitted in open court on the facts and circumstances
of the disposal of the stolen goods. However, a day before Karl would testify, he died due to
Covid19 exposure. The prosecution instead presented Xepher, the brother of Karl, to testify
to Court the alleged confession of Karl when they went on a drinking spree. Is the
testimony admissible? Assuming Karl was able to testify, would it be admissible?

Ans: No. The testimony of Xepher is hearsay and inadmissible inasmuch as Xepher does
not have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances, and is inherently unreliable
since the admitter, Karl, cannot be cross examined by Kuku; it has not been subjected by
the declarant testifying under oath or affirmation; and the court before whom the evidence
has been presented has been deprived of its opportunity to obtain demeanor evidence.

If it was Karl who testified or any person who acted as confident or received a confession
from Kuku the alleged act of purchasing stolen goods from Karl, it would have been
admissible pursuant to Section 27 of Rule 130 which provides that the act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her. For an
extrajudicial admission to be admissible the following requisites must be obtained: (1) must
involve matters of fact and not of law (2) it must be knowingly and voluntarily given,
categorical, and definite (3) and must be adverse to the admitter’s interest. In the case at
bar, the confession by Karl to Xepher was made during their drinking spree and pertained
to the fact and circumstances surrounding the theft and disposal of jewelries belonging to
another with intent to gain. Notwithstanding that it was not presented in the previous case,
it may still be admissible in the present criminal case if formally offered and corroborated
by evidence of the corpus delicti.

Yes the testimony of Karl would be admissible. Assuming Karl would be able to testify and
repeats his judicial admission in the previous criminal case, the same would constitute as
an extra judicial admission which are made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other
than the one under consideration. The pertinent law for that matter is provided under
Section 29 which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. Otherwise known as the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule, it
provides that whatever one says or does or omits to do should only affect him but should
not affect or prejudice others. Thus, an extrajudicial confession or admission is admissible
only against said accused, but is inadmissible against the other accused. However,
statements made in open court by a witness implicating persons, aside from his own
judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge
of the facts testified to. In other words, the extrajudicial admission if repeated by the
admitter in open court now becomes a judicial admission and the accused is accorded the
opportunity to cross-examine the admitter. In this case, if Karl would repeat his statement
recounting the facts and circumstances surrounding the disposal of the stolen jewelry, the
same would now be admissible as a judicial admission.

XPNS to 1st Branch of Res Inter Alios Acta Rule

1. Admission by a Co-Partner and Agent
Agency is an agreement whereby one binds himself to render some service or to do
something in representation or on behalf of another who consent or give authority to the
former which by legal fiat becomes an extension of his personality provided that such agent
does not act in his own name or go beyond the scope of his authority. As for partners, all
partners shall be considered agents and whatever any one of them may do alone shall bind
the partnership unless the manner of management has been agreed upon provided further
that one partner cannot make any important alteration of the immovable property of the
partnership.

Requisites
1. The act or declaration of the agent must be within the scope of his authority
2. The act or declaration was made during the existence of the partnership or agency
3. There must be proof of existence of partnership or agency other than the act or
declaration.

Any declaration made before the partnership or agency existed, or those made after, are not
admissible against the other partners or the principal but remains admissible against the
partner or agent making the declaration. It is also necessary for the application of the
exception that the proof of the agency or partnership be from a source independent of the
declaration made by the partner or agent.
Thus, if after the partnership is dissolved and liquidated, AA, a former partner in ABC
Partnership, admits before a police investigator that he and his partners were engaged in
smuggling highly dutiable imported cigarettes while the partnership was operating a buy
and sell business, the extrajudicial declarations of AA are not admissible against BB and
CC, his former partners. His declarations are nevertheless, admissible against him

Rule on Dissolved Partnerships

G.R. Admissions made after the partnership has been dissolved do not fall within the
exception because such are made when the partnership no longer exists.

XPN: When the admissions are made in connection with the winding up of partnership
affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as an agent of his co-
partner in said winding up.

Section 30 also applies to the following:

1. Admission made by joint owner
If there is a party under a state of co-ownership, the admission made by any of the co-
owners is admissible against the other co-owners since the law considers them as one and
the same.

2. Admission made by joint debtor

The admission made by one debtor is admissible against the other joint debtors. On the
same premise that in law, they are considered as one and the same party.
3. Admission made by a person not a partner, agent, joint debtor, joint owner but a person
who is jointly interested with a party. (See Textbox 1)

2. Admission by Co-Conspirator.
The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its
existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown
by evidence other than such act of declaration

Requisites:
1. Act or declaration must be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy.
2. Act or declaration must relate to the purpose and object of the conspiracy
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such declaration or act.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of
one is the act of all.

The rule applies only to extrajudicial acts, declarations, or omissions and not to testimony
at trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the
witness.

Extrajudicial admissions made after the conspiracy had been terminated

G.R. not admissible even before trial

XPN:
1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator who expressly agrees therein.
2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial
confessions made by the co-conspirator after their apprehension.
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness.
4. As a circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-conspirator’s participation
in the offense.

3.
Previous Conduct [a]s Evidence
SECTION 35. Similar Acts as
Evidence. — 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. (34a)
SECTION 36. Unaccepted Offer. —
An offer in writing to pay a
particular sum of money or to
deliver a written instrument or
specific property is, if rejected
without valid cause, equivalent to
the actual production and tender of
the money, instrument, or property.
(35)
[SECTION 36. Testimony Generally
Confined to Personal Knowledge;
Hearsay Excluded. — (Transposed
to Sec. 22.Testimony confined to
personal knowledge.)]
TB#1: ADMISSION MADE BY A PERSON NOT A PARTNER, AGENT,
JOINT DEBTOR, JOINT OWNER BUT A PERSON WHO IS JOINTLY
INTERESTED WITH A PARTY.
Narra-Nickel Case
Exception to res inter alios acta rule applies – sec. 29 rule 130 roc
–
Admission by co-partner or agent and admission by privies
Petitioners:
a. question the CA’s use of the exception of the res inter alios
acta or "admission by co-partner or agent" rule and "admission by
privies" under the Rules of Court by pointing out that statements
made by MBMI should not be admitted because MBMI is not a
party to the case and that it is not a "partner" of petitioners.
b. the CA erred in applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules by
stating that "by entering into a joint venture, MBMI have a joint
interest" with Narra, Tesoro and McArthur.
A partnership is akin to a joint venture
- A partnership is defined as two or more persons who bind
themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a
common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among
themselves.
- On the other hand, joint ventures have been deemed to be
"akin" to partnerships since it is difficult to distinguish between
joint ventures and partnerships.
- The relations of the parties to a joint venture and the nature of
their association are so similar and closely akin to a partnership
that it is ordinarily held that their rights, duties, and liabilities are
to be tested by rules which are closely analogous to and
substantially the same, if not exactly the same, as those which
govern partnership.
- The trend in the law has been to blur the distinctions between a
partnership and a joint venture, very little law being found
applicable to one that does not apply to the other.
The relationships entered between the petitioners and MBMI are
considered to be partnerships
- Corporations are prohibited from entering into partnership
agreements; consequently, corporations enter into joint venture
agreements with other corporations or partnerships for certain
transactions in order to form "pseudo partnerships."
- However, it is clear that the intricate web of "ventures" entered
into by and among petitioners and MBMI was executed to
circumvent the legal prohibition against corporations entering into
partnerships, then the relationship created should be deemed as
"partnerships," and the laws on partnership should be applied.
- Thus, a joint venture agreement between and among
corporations may be seen as similar to partnerships since the
elements of partnership are present.
- Considering that the relationships found between petitioners and
MBMI are considered to be partnerships, then the CA is justified in
applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by
entering into a joint venture, MBMI have a joint interest" with
Narra, Tesoro and McArthur.