REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER vals Received from third person not acting in behalf for as agent ofthe client; and 5. Made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney-client relations ‘The period to be considered is that date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past of with respect to a crime intended ta he committed Inthe future Communications regarding a crime aleeady committed made by the offender to an attorney, consulted as such, are privileged communications Contemplated criminal acts are not covered, The privilege DOES NOT attach when the attorney is a conspirator. ‘The privilege DOES NOT apply when all do it to either affirm or deny the client to the court. Purpose facts, circumstances, and symptoms," ‘untraimeled by: apprehension of ther subsequont and enforced dslosure ‘and publication on the witness stand, to the end that the ! physician may form a correct opinion, and be r safely and efficaciously to treat his patiertt, REQUISITES: “Se 1. The physician is authorized to practice medicine,” surgery, or obstetries; 2 The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was een by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and curing the patient; 3. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the reputation ofthe patient; and 4. The privilege is invoked in a chil case, whether patients party or not. It is not necessary that the physician-patient relationship, was created through the voluntary act ofthe patient. ‘The privilege extends to all forms of communications as well as to the professional observations and examinations of the patient ETL OPERATIONS 2010 “be objected to Gn the ground of priviege Ache ity Guevara Atty. Arroy Ait. Savedor Atty, Viruan judge Bnifodo; Heads: Glrissa Faylona, Maria Kristina Understudy: Roxanne Tadique, Alexis Gmagata; Vohinteors: Grace Escosi, ina Bionka Siva, Nash Marchomsalie, KSuarer. ‘THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY: 11. The communication was not given in confidence; 2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional employment; 3. The communication was made for an unlawful purpose, as wher itis intended for the commission or concealment of a crime; 4, The information was intended to be made public; and 5. There was a walver of the privilege either by provisions of contract orlaw. The physician may testiy if he confined himsetf merely to the ascertainment of the nature and character of the Injury for the purpose of reporting them to the defendant, ‘The burden of proving that such relation does not exist is ‘upon the person objecting it. Death ofthe patient does not extinguish the relation, 28 of the Rules of Court, the results of the Unde id. méntal examination of 2 person, when physical ordered by the court, are intended to be made public, they can be divulged in that proceeding and cannot entra intended to be diged in cour, aside from the pp fac the doctors services were nat for purposes af medical ‘treatment Bus SEE j jot a waiver of the privilege by provision of law Section 4 of said Rule 28 under which if the mined obtains a report on said examination or the deposition of the examiner, he thereby waives ‘any privilege regarding any other examination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to be ‘conducted on him by any other physician, is four ‘Waiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulations in ife insurance policies. wunications to Minister or Priest Peenitent REQuismTES: 1. That the same were made pursuant to religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination to which they belong; and 2 Must be confidential and penitential in character. Example: under seal of the confessional tis the person making the confession who can invoke the privilege. 270valk Oem REQuisiTes: 1. That it was made to the public officer in officiel confidence; 2 That public Interest would suffer by the Asclosure of such communication, as in the case of State secrets. Where no public interest will be prejudiced, this rule will ‘aot apply. PUBLIC INTEREST — something in which the community at large has some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or labilties are affected, ‘Other instances of Privilege * Under RA 53 25 amended by RA1477, the’ eattor or duly accredited reporter of ay newspaper, ‘magazine or periodical of general n cannot be compelled to reveal the soured of any news report. or information appearing in std coo was related in confidence to him unless th proceedings shall ‘communications and shall ot be used as evideree in" the National Labor Relations “Commission, and! cconciiators and similar officials shall ‘court or body regarding any matter Conciliation proceedings conducted by them ‘+ Voters cannot be compelled to reveal their ballots. ‘+ Trade Secrets will be covered by this privilege. © Prosecutor is not to be compelled to dispose the identity of the informer unless the informer is already known to the accused and when the identity of the informer is vital. GENERAL RULE: Bank deposits may not be disclosed 2. Impeachment under the Constitution; 3 Upon order of the court in case of bribery or dereliction of duty; 4 When the subject matteris the deposits; 5. Anti-grat cases. enEee 2. Testimonial Privlere Section 25, Parental and filial Privilege This section is an expanded amendment of the former provision found in Section 20 (e), 2 disqualification by reason of relationship which, in turn, was reproduced from ‘Ast. 315 ofthe Gil Code. {t was not correctly a rule of disqualification, as the doscondant was not incompetent or disqualified to testify against his ascendants, but was actually a privilege to testify, hence it was referred to as “filial privilege”. However, under the Family Cade, the descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such testimony is indispensable in prosecuting 2 crime ‘against the descendant by one parent against the other fart. 215). Under the present formulation, both parental and fil .plévleges ‘re granted to any person, which privileges _ against compulsory testimony he can invoke in any case ES, em Sree ra re eae “Reason for the Rsle The reason for the rule is to preserve “family cohesion” ) deploring the latk of this provision under former laws 2 ee Violence to the most sacred sentiments between ,- Methbers of te same family.” Pieler ere Section 26. Admission of @ party ADMISSION ~ any statement of fact made by @ party ‘against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or i inconsistent with the facts alleged by tim. It is a voluntary acknowledgment in express terms or by implication, by a party interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound, against his interest, of the existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue (Francisco). EXPRESS ADMISSIONS are those made in definite, certain and unequivocal language. Advisers: ity, Guevarra Aty. Arroyo Atty. Sohador Ay, Vinkaon Judge Bonifacio; Heads: Clarssa Faylona, aria Kristina Se Understudy: Rexanne Tadique, Alexis Cimagala; Volunteers: Grace Escosia, Ina Bianka Sil, Nash Marohomsalc, K Suarez‘Example: Action for personal injures caused by a colision between P's carriage and 0's automobile. D was net in the ‘automobile when the accident occurred. D’s son was driving the automobile, having taken it without express permission from D. Before tral O told P's husband that he had bought the automobile for the pleasure of his family ‘and for business; that members ofthe farnily might take it without asking; and that so faras the lability extended (D) was responsible. On the bases of this express admission, verdict was rendered for P. Ukewise, defendant duly executes and signs a document before 2 notary public Stating therein that hs wife isthe true and absolute owner Of the lands which are the subject matter of the litigation. ‘Said document is an express admission that defendant is not the owner of the land, and admissible against him. IMPLIED ADMISSIONS are those which may be inferred from the acts, declarations or omission of 2. partynre Therefore, an admission may be implied froqtondvct, statement of silence of a party. Examples: The payment of interest of’ debt isan implied. admission ofthe existence ofthe Ge ‘The repair made by the landlord that itis not the duty of the tes ‘The immediate fight of the ‘other country is the implied conscioysness stansing yy orga e Failure to answer a letter does not give rise to an iplied: admission as to the truth of the stat contained therein, since there i no duty upon the reply. However, where good faith requires addressee state his postion frankly so that the addressee bie not misled, acquiescence may be inferred from now. deni Failure to return or object to a bill or statement sent by the debtor, within a reasonable time, is competent evidence (but rebuttable) that the account is correct. Undue delay in the enforcement of a right és strongly Persuasive evidence that the clalm lacks merit because itis human nature for a person to assert his rights most strongly when they are threatened or invaded, Delay in instituting 2 criminal prosecution, unless satisfactorily explained, creates suspicion about. the ‘motive of the supposed offended party and gives rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt ofthe defendant. CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2010 Advisers: Aity. Guovarra Atty. Arroyo Atty, Savedor Atty. Vinluan, Implied admission cennot be inferred from an act of repairing a defect that caused an injury. A person may have exercised all the care that the law required and yet, in the light of his new experience, after an unexpected ‘accident has occurred, and as a measure of extreme caution, he may adopt additional safeguards. ‘Admission and Confession Distinguished — Telewohves an offactwhich doesnot | acknowledgment of euit or involve an Yabiey acknowledgement of git orbit Rinse express or et [Mit be express ‘May be made by third | Can be made only by the persons ray himself and in some - instance, are admissible Pa, against hiscoaconed ‘The rule that the aét, declaration or omission of a party Igy be given in evidence against him is besed upon the jan that no man could declare anything against of isa rule that a “statement Is not competent as an admission where it does not, under a reasonable {{ construction, appear to admit ‘They must be categorical and definite; ‘They must be knowingly and voluntarily made; They must be adverse to the admitter's interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and ‘inadmissible, ‘An admission may be introduced in evidence in two ways: 1 2 Independent evidence Impeaching evidence Independent evidence — admissions are original evidence ‘and no foundation is necessary for thelr introduction In evidence If the admission was made orally, it may be proved by any ‘competent witness who heard them or by the declarant himself. 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. Burge Bonifacio; Head: Carissa Fay, Marla Kitna Santos; ‘Understudy: Roxanne Tadique, Alexis Cimagala; Volunteers: Grace Excosia, tna Bianka Silva, Nash MarchornsalicK Suarerae eg REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER Impeaching evidence — a proper foundation must be lid {or the impeaching questions, by calling attention of such party to his former statement so as to eve him an ‘opportunity to explain before such admissions are offered inevidence. Example to illustrate the rules regarding the introduction of admissions in evidence either as an Independent or 2¢ impeaching evidence: P sues D for 2 balance due and unpaid for groceries furnished. The claim is for P175 due on July 31. D disputes the amount due, and offers a statement of account sent by P in September reading “Balance due — P75". This i& admissible and may be presented as part of the evidence inchiet of 0. ‘Action was brought by broker P for commissions on stock shares bought and sold for D. All the transactions been made through O's office manager. P.. interest at 8% was understood to he chargé monthly on balances. The manager testifies that theffterest wastobe 3 tow oes Re oD de containing the sentence “as usual th yor, expec toh 8% interest on monthly balances. 1D had ‘ans a5 @ witness and had testified ‘manager's statements as to the ur Zwei In6eESS/ or P's counsel to ask Dif bead wtten sich eter, before introducing itn rebuttal a D's asin foe prance tema Admissions may be verbal or written, express of tacts. Judicial or exrajudia S : JUDICIAL ADMISSION s {tis one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in Which itis offered; while an extrajudicial admission is any ‘other admission (may be out of court or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration), NOTE: Section 26 and 32 of this Rule refer to extrajudicial admissions. Testimony of the accused in a particular case to the effect that he was married to the victim is an admission against his penal interest and will sustain his conviction even in the absence of independent evidence to prove such marriage | —Aabiers Atty. Guevara Atty. Aroy Atty. Salvador Atty. Vian Judge Bonieco; Head bee claire the ea OPERATIONS 2010 ‘Admission v. Declaration Against interest ‘Anadmission need not be | The decaration against against one's proprietary | interest musthave been ‘or pecuniary interest, ‘made aginst the akhough, of course, it wil | proprietary o pecuniary realy enhance its Interest of the parties probative weight it be so made Wises party hima)” Whasthave been iad by {isa primary evidence | person whois either | Sree jel The decioration against interest mast have been ‘made ante Iter motom SELE-SERMING DECLARATION is one which has been made -trajeticllythe party to favor bis interests. is sot vital objettion to the admission of this kind of B “efeence ists hearsay character. To permit introduction “would open the door to frauds and perjuries. 7 > open the door to fraud and fabrication of ‘testimony. 3. The fact that if testified to by one other than the declarant, they would be hearsay. Self serving testimony refers to extrajudicial statement of 2 party which is being urged for admission in cour. It does not include his testimony as a witness in court. I fas no application to a court declaration. Where the statement was not made in anticipation of a future litigation, the same cannot be considered self-serving. The mere fact of death alone does not render competent self-serving conduct, admissions or dedarations of the deceased person during his life-time. Unswom declarations by others for the declarant would bbe inadmissible Garis Feyiona, Maria Kristina Santos; Understudy: Roxanne Tadique, Alexts Cimagata; Volunteers: Grace Escosa, ina Bianka Silva, Nash Marohomsali,K Suarez —REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER A fa N E igi. Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a party are not admissible in favor ofthe later ‘L._Agants,as regards thelr principals; 2. A co-defendant or co-partner, as regards the other; A guardian as regards his word; ‘A principat as regards his surety; ‘A husband or wife as regards his or her spouse; An employee, as regards his employer; Officers of the corporation; Publi officers as regards public corporation; Predecessors in tite, as regards am owner of property. Self-serving declarations made by a party are admissible in is own bebatf in the following 1. When they fornt part of res gestae, including spontaneous statements and verbal ats; ee aD TIONS 2010 Examples of Admissions Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness gut. Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence, as by destruction of documentary evidence, Is admissible under ‘the same rationale. ‘The act of reporting a machine, bridge, or other facility after an injury has been sustained therein is not an Implied admission of negligence by conduct. Its merely 3 measure of extreme caution by adopting additional safeguards since, despite due care and diligence, an unexpected accident can still occur. ‘Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible = an agreement made between two or 2. When they are in the form of complai COMPROMISE crema tpan eta ee tes as a settlement af the matters in dispute. 3. When they are part of a confess@h offered by the prosecution, that his fabrication, in which case even of & self serving! character, admitted, provided they were ‘when a mative to misrepresent 4. Where ey ate fred the Spine The ~ objections which have Ben Bointed but donot ‘ppl agtinst the reception of the statements of ‘one party as evidence when such statements are ny is @ recent 1 pron declaration, aa Gio 27 . > awaffetiot compromise is not an admission of f yh not adie n erdene gat the except those ivohing quastoffenses ‘{elimioal negligince) or those allowed by law to be compromised, ap offer of compromise by the accused may {9} be received in eydence as on implied admission of gui offered by his adversary. Every wtten 3 fbn statements of a party in his-own favor ean bed”) fGen successfully turned when suchistatements are!) offered against him; 5. When they are offered without evidence cannot afterward be objected to as Incompetent. ‘An invoice prepared by a merchant in the city covering ‘merchandise consigned to his agent in the province, and a letter of said merchant requesting confirmation of the receipt of said merchandise by the agent, are not self serving if they had been prepared not in anticipation of litigation in which they were presented as evidence. Diaries, as a general rule, are inadmissible because they are self-serving in nature, UNLESS they have the nature of books of account; but it has been held that an entry in diary, being in the nature of a declaration, if it was against interest when made, is admissible. Advisers: Atty. Guevarra Atty. Arroyo Atty, Salvador, Atty. Vial offer of compromise is not an admission of any Kability and is not admissible in evidence against an offeror. EXCEPTIONS: 1. An express admission of liability made during ‘negotiations for a compromise; Express and unqualified admission of febtedness accompanying an offer of compromise; ‘An admission of the correctness of an account or ‘of specific items; 4. Admission involving interest in property; 5. Admission affecting ability for atort. ft is the policy of the law to favor the settlement of sputes, to foster compromise, and to promote peace. If every offer to buy peace could be used as evidence against him who presents it, many settlements would be Prevented, and unnecessary litgation would be produced and prolonged. an Judge Bonifacio; Heads: Carissa Faylona Sento; Understudy: Rexanne Tadiqve, Alesis Gmagala; Vounteers: Grace Escosia, Ina Bianka Silva, Nash Marohomsafc, K SuarezREMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER While a bare offer to compromise does not constitute an ‘admission on the part of the person making it, the fact that a writing contains an offer of compromise does not render it inadmissible In evidence if it is competent ‘evidence for ather purposes. Generally, an admission of fact pertinent to an issue between the parties, which forms part of an offer of ‘compromise or was made in the course of negotiations to effect a settlement is admissible on the trial of such issue. Except if itis 2) 50 closely connected with the offer of ‘compromise as to be inseparable therefrom, or b) i 3 tentative or hypothetical statement as distinguished from @ definite statement of fact, or ¢) is expressly made without prejudice, or d) indicates that it is made in Confidence that a compromise will be affected. An exes non of aiy made rng regions fora compromise hasbeen held sdnissble. Example: é ‘pedestrian sean over by achive, he is injured tater on the dever approached the pedestian end Said 5 becase he was crunk tat gh an fered» pmen The pedestlan may not introduc the fact ath was. offered money to show that a can introduce the fact that the dr oe In criminal cases, an offer of en Suntan of gu athough ne acteca mays eared to prove that such offer was not {made ‘tinder Consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the risks of 2 criminal action against him. (GENERAL RULE: No compromise may be entered ‘regard the penal action. EXCEPTION: Compromise may be entered into with respect to the civil lability. |n criminal cases where compromise is allowed by law (e.g. opium or usury cases) no implied admission of guilt arises against the accused who makes an offer to compromise. In prosecution for violation of the internal revenue law, such offers of compromise are nat admissible in evidence as the law provides that the payment of any internal revenue tax may be compromised, and all_criminal violations may likewise be compromised, except those already filed in court and those involving fraud. Criminal labilty s extinguished in @ RAPE CASE if there CENTRAL BAR eT Eat ‘s sini i Set cA ‘An offer to compromise via a monetary consideration and not to marry the victim, is an implied admission of uit. ‘The attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the ‘ease with the complainant was considered an implied admission of gut. ‘The SC has held that an offer of marriage by the accused, during the investigation of the rape case é ako admission of guit. NOTE: What matters is the fact of mardage and not the intent behind the marriage. Example, it does not matter whether the accused married the victim for the reason of ‘exculpating him from criminal lability. ‘The amendment regarding the admissibility of a plea of guilty ister withdrawn or an unaccepted offer to plead _plty to a lesser offense is a consequence of the present ‘finsions in criminal procedure on ples-baraiing. One Of the pgactcal reasons advanced is that encouragement of negotiations; between the defense and prosecution to pleas requires fexbitty in making them without prejudice. court allow the acused to change plea when the ‘eee wa made morose. Criminal cases involving criminal negigence, or the quasi frees comet n At. 65 of the RPG ae owed ised under the amendment to this section. ‘of settlement is not an implied admission ‘offer to pay or the actual payment of the medical, hospital or other expenses by reason of the victim's Injuries is not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability ‘therefore. Such humanitarian acts or charitable responses should be encouraged and rewarded, instead of being iscoureged or penalized by being considered as admissions of liability. troublesome question arises when an express admission, of lability is coupled with an offer of assistance. Some ‘courts have stated that both should be admitted since the ‘express admission insured that the offer or tender of assistance was ‘not merely an act of benevolence, but some admission of faut.” f the admission can be disclosed without mentioning the furnishing, offering or promise to pay medical expenses, then it should be admitted.Section 28. Admissibility by third party Unless he assents thereto, a party to an action cannot be affected by the admission of 9 person who does not ‘occupy toward him any relation of privity, agency or joint interest. ‘The act, declaration or omission of another is generally irelevant, and that in justice @ person should not be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers, ‘The rule is welFsettied that a party is not bound by any ‘agreement of which he has no knowledge and to which he has not given his consent and that his rights cannot be prejudiced by the declaration, act or omission of another, ‘except by virtue ofa particular relation between them. This section refers to the first branch of the rule of "RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTER! NOCERE NON DEBET.” It is eT OPERATIONS 2010 3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership, agency or joint interest. Rules on Partnerships ‘The declaration of one partner, not made in the presence of his corpartner, are not competent to prove the ‘existence of a partnership between them as against such ‘other partner. The existence of a partnership i cannot be established by general reputation, humor or hearsay Even where one partner is shown to be hostile to ‘another, the admissions of such first partner may be received, although, of course, such hastily may affect the question of weight of the evidence. The declarations of a deceased partner, relating to the partnership business, are _adiissible against his survivors, corolary known a the second branch of the ale in Section 34 of Rule 130. (7 Resins or asin mac by 4 ptr she the cerHONS: : 1. Third person is a partner,“agent, joint Joint dettor or has a joint faterest with {Section 29); & aes 2. Conmconspitator ee 3 Pr of pry See 3 e Basis of the Exceptions A third party may be so united in interest e ‘opponent that the other person's admissions may be receivable against the party himself. The term “privy | the orthodox catchword forthe relation. =. Section 28, Admission by co-partner or agent ‘The admission of one partner is received against another (on the ground that they are identified in interest , and that each is agent for the other and that the acts or declarations of one during the existence of the Partnership, while transacting its business and within the scope of the business, are evidence against the others ReQuismtes: 1, That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration — partnership relation must be shown; 2. The act or declaration Is within the scope of the partnership, agency or joint interest ~ the fact that ‘each has individually made a substantially similar ‘admission does not render the aggregate admission Competent against the firm, this is with regard to on-partnership affair; the may “Advisers: Atty. Guevarra Atty. Arroyo,Atly. Salvador Atty. Vinluan Judge Bonlfad; Heads Charissa Fayiona, Maria Kristina Santos, kution of the partnership are not competent against the in the absence of prior authority or ‘Subsequent ratification, even though such declarations to meters pending at the te of dsolton. With respect tothe relevant substante provisions on “these-matiers,gefer to the Chil Code provisions on partners, agents co-owners and solidary debtors. NOTE: As @ rule statements made after a partnership has Bh Beem ‘do not fall within this exception, but where 8 the ad are made in connection with the winding. Partnership affairs, said admissions are stil nisdble as the partner is acting 2s an agent of his co- In said winding up. up of Rules on Agents. What's done by an agent is done by the principal through hhim, as through a mere instrument. ‘The admission or declaration of an agent subsequent to a transaction in controversy, or after the agency has terminated are not binding upon, or evidence against his Drincipal But when the admission or declaration is made at the time of the transaction, or during his employment, when it pertains to the matter in hand, and was done within the scope of his employment, his admissions and declarations are competent, though not conclusive against his principal. When a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any thier person for an answer on a particular subject in ‘dispute, such answer, if restricted to the subject matter in Felation to which the reference is made, &, in general, Understudy: Rexanne Tadique, Alexis Cimagala; Volunteers: Grace Escasa, Ina Bianka Silva, Nash Marohomsate K suaret‘evidence against said party, because he makes such third ‘person his accredited agent for the purpose of giving such ‘Admissions of a third person are receivable in evidence ‘against the party who has expressly referred another to him for information in regard to an uncertain or disputed matter. ‘But such a reference does not make the person referred to an agent for the purpose of making general admissions. The declarations are not evidence, unless strictly with the subject matter in relation to which reference is made. When the reference was not made to any particular person but in general, the rule above-stated is not ‘applicable, ‘Admissions by counsel are admissible against the the former acts In representation and a5 an, client, subject to the limitation that the amount to a compromise or confession, ‘of the ‘should not Fiudement Rules on persons with ajont| The piste lat deter ae community of interest pou secorang fo ts mening inthe ceed which the provision was taken hit 3 ‘mancomunada. ¥ The qontum tne te let a ebelt the application ofthe rule. ts the fact of joint interest, ‘not the sie ofthe fractional part, which thes liable to the plaintiff in the same defendants are fable, the extent to which They re bed aa °. by his admission cannot be measured or graduated by the quantity of his interest in the contract. Section 30. Admission by conspirator Under the Revised Penal Code, a conspiracy exists when, two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission ofa felony and decide to commitit. How Conspiracies are Proved. Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and another performing Part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the ‘attainment of the same object, one will be justified in the . es ed OPERATIONS 2010 ia ~ Advisers: ity Guevara At. Arroyo Atty, Salvador Ait. Vision Judge Bonifacio; Heads: Gasca Fayona, Maria conclusion that they were engaged in the conspiracy to effect that object. NOTE: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or statements and not to testimony given on the witness. stand at the trial where the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to crossexamine the declarant. Hence, the requirement that the conspiracy ‘must preliminary be proved by evidence other than the ‘conspirator’s admission apples only to extrajudicial, but otto judicial, admissions. REQUISITES: 11. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence allunde ~ conspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the judgment of the court; 2. The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy — after the termination of a ‘conspiracy, the statements of one conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of the other conspirators; and the admission related to the conspiracy ise _ Should relate to the common object. © Theselgre not required in admisions during the trial a5 the co-accused can cross-examine the declarant and besides these are admissions ater the cogspracy has ended. Ricect root is ot essential to prove conspiracy the conspigsty may be inferred from: acts ofthe accused; ‘The confessions of the accused; or Prima facie proof thereof. ‘The concurrence of minds essential to conspiracy may be Inferred where the parties are apparently pursuing the same object, whether acting separately ot together, by ‘common or different means, leading to the same lawful result. A common purpose is inferable from concerted action converging to a definite objective and whether or ‘ot the parties meet, or confer and formulate their plans. Conspiracy must be shown to exist as dearly and ‘convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. ‘A person charged with conspiracy is presumed to be innocent, and the burden i on the prosecution to establish his gut, ‘The rule of evidence with regard to conspiracy fs founded fon the principle which apples to agencies and ‘Understudy: Roxanne Tadique, Alexis Cemsagala; Volunteer: Groce Escosia, Ina Blanka Silva, Nash Marchomsalic, K Suarer 7REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER. : ATE | ia O iene partnerships, the association shouldbe bound by the acts of one of ts members in carving out the design. Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy, the extrajudicial confession of an accused ‘cannot be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both extrajudicial confessions and admissions. GENERAL RULE: Extrajudicial admissions made by a ‘conspirator after the conspiracy has terminated and even before trial are also not admissible against the oo- conspirator. ‘EXCEPTIONS: 1. Made in the presence of the later who expressly or impledy agreed therein, 2s there would be a tacit ‘admission under Section 32; 2. Where the facts stated in said Conte i he nde Se oe made by the co-conspirators after thei‘spprehension {ietertocking confessions}; 3 ay aS. witness; and 4. As circumstantial evidence to Show the the ators partyin nthdetfons 0 hag. erie 8S et as if mate iter the act wee hye or finally defeated, the dodanie against the person who made." 7 In order that the extrajuccal statement of 9 co-accused ‘may be taken into consideration in judging Ye testimony of a witness ts necessary that the statements by several accused, the some are in all material respects ‘ential, and there could have been no colhision among sald co-accused in making such statements. If this testimony is introduced to prove the truth of B's statement, it wil be hearsay, but it wil fll within the co- conspirator exception to hearsay rule. Ths fs because the statement was: 1. Made by a co-conspirator; 2. Made during the course of the conspiracy; and 3. Made in furtherance of the objectives of the ‘conspiracy. Section 31. Admission by privies PRIVITY ~ mutual succession of relationship to the same rights of property. PRIVIES - those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property or subject matter, such a5 personal representatives, heirs, devisees, legates, assigns, voluntary grantee or judgment creditors Cor purchasers from them without notices tothe fact. REQUISITES: ‘L.there must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant; 2. The admission was made by the declarant, as Predecessor in interest, while holding the title to the property; and 3. The admission i in relation to sald property. “The privity in estate may have arisen by succession by acts ‘mortiscousa or by acts inter vives. tron esbihed rain een that he decaron of lunder whom the tile i claimed are recehvable ezine’ successor so aiming on the theory that there fisontiderity of interest to render the statements of f receivable with the admissions of the Sige One ef ra I ee oh cach clea senate _ tt ed te polyno he 8 stunted have ts teres’ 6 coed fentaecurity against falsehood. “order to render an admission of a former owner of Property competent against his successor in title, it must have been made at a time when the title was with the | GENERAL RULE: Declarations of the transferor, made subsequent tothe transfer, are inadmissible. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Where the declarations are made in the presence of the tronsferee and he acquiesces in the statements or asserts no rights where he ‘ought to speak; 2. Where there has been 2 prima facie case of fraud established as where the thing granted has «8 corpus, and the possession of the thing after the sale or transfer, remains with the seller or transferor; and ~Advisers: Atty. Guevarra Atty, Avoyo Atty. Salvador Atty. Vinluan Judge Bonifacio; Heads: Garissa Faylona, aria Understudy: Roxanne Tadique, Ales Gimagala; Volunteers: Grace Escosla, Ina Blanka Sta, Nash Marchomsalc,K Suarez — 2783. Where the evidence establishes @ continuing conspiracy to defraud, which conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee. Section 32. Admission by silence The rule that the silence of the party against whom a claim or a right is asserted may be construed as an admission of the truth of the assertion rests on that instinct of our nature, which leads us to resist an unfounded demand. REQUISITES: 1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration ofthe other person; 2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it; 3. He must have understood the statement; 4. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so, as if the statement was not true; 5. The facts are within his knowledge; 6. The fact admitted or the infer be drawn {rom his silence is material tothe issue When Applicable é et “This ule applies in both criminal as ell a in civil The rule on admission by sence was. supped inthe act of : custody of the police. Ve Voluntary parcpation in a mn fe. conducted by the police is considera a tac admission of > “complicity. y a However, for a reenactment to be given arwizevidentiary weight, the vallty and efficacy of the confesiofmust Frstbe shown, The implication of gut not derived fom mere slence but from appellant’ sent acauiescence in participating inthe reenactment ofthe crime ‘The rule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. However, if there was no such mutual correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the theory that while the party would have immediately reacted by a ‘denial of the statement were orally made in his presence, ‘such prompt response can generally not be expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply. ‘A person under investigation for the commission of an offense has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right. a eT) A fa N lm O OPERATIONS 20/0 Sag) “Doctrine of Ade BED — Advisers: Atty. Guevarra,Atty. Arroyo,Atty. Sahador Atty. VinkuanJudge Bonifedo; Heads: Garissa Faylons, Maria Kristina Santis; When NOT Applicable ‘The rule DOES NOT apply if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation (eg, where he was pointed out in the course of a custodial investigation and was neither asked to reply nor comment ‘on suc imputations) or where the party had a justifiable Feason to remain silent (eg. where he was acting on ‘advice of counsel), otherwise his right to silence would be Alusory, "No admission can be implied from silence where: ‘The failure to answer was caused by constraint; ‘The party was not aware at the time that he had an interest, or believed that he had no interest, or was only indirect affected; or ‘= Where, as the matter was presented, he had no interest to object (eg. where the statement was at addressed to him or was in his favor). sence of relevancy occurs where an answer would be anseemy interuption of orderly proceedings shen in progres fe, the delivery ofa sermon, the taking of oF of testimony in open court or the magistrate, counsel, or other person ERE rover Kin In cour proceeding). ‘Adeision is 2 ports escton t@ statement or gction by another person when it is RE reasonable to teat the party's reaction as an admission of, _gszmething tated or impked by the other person. (Estrada fs Deserta, Nos. 14671015) Where There is No implied Admission: ” Alegatios of unliquidated damages 2 Allegatins which are not material tothe cause faction: 3. Conclusions of factlaw; 4. Allegations of usury other than in a complaint; 5. If defendant has not filed his answer and is declared in defaut. ‘Section 33. Confession CONFESSION ~ categorical acknowledgement of guitt made by an accused in a criminal case, without any ‘exculpatory statement or explanation. 4 the accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justification therefore, the same is ‘merely an admission, ‘There can also be a confession of judgment in a cil case ‘where the party expressly admits his faility. Understudy: Roxanne Tadique, Alexis Cimagala; Volunteers: Grace Escosa, Ina Blanka Sil, Nash Marchomsalic,K Suarez —eg REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER s ATENEO A ‘Confession may either be oral or in vriting and if in writing, it need not be under oath. = “The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made while the accused was under arrest does not render it inadmissible where the same was made and admitted prior to the 1973 Constitution. ‘Aconfession may either be judicial or extrajudicial JUDICIAL CONFESSION — one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain 2 conviction even in capital offenses, EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION — one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless ‘corroborated by evidence ofthe corpus detict. This section refers to extrajudicial confessions. REQUISITES: Z 1. The. confession must involve“an express and Categorical acknowledgment f guit; ge 2 The facts admitted must be constitutive gf criminal offense; ee The confession must hay beet Oe P made, the accused resing'the importance of): admisble not | jojo. afes desta, aside from the consideration that no custodial 15) The wailér of the right to counsel during custodial legal significance ofthis act and * There must have been no valatiogbtSecioh 12, | [Atti of the 1987 Constitution. ak Confessions are presumed to be voluntary con the defense to prove tht it was involuntary ‘been obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency. ‘The following circumstances have been held to be indicia of the voluntariness of a confession: + The confession contains details which the police ‘could not have supplied or invented, ‘+ The confession contains detalls which could have bbeen known ony to the accused. + The confession contains statements which are exculpatory in natu +The confession contains corrections made by the ‘accused in his handwriting or with his initials and which corrected facts are best known to the accused, + The accused is sufficiently educated and aware ‘of the consequences of his act ed be TD OPERATIONS 2010 + fe was made in the presence of impartat witnesses wth the accused acting normally on thatoceasion. + There is lack of motive on the part of the investigators to. extract a confession, with improbabilties and inconsistencies in the attempt of the accused to repudiate his confession +The scouted questioned the voluntariness ofthe confession only forthe fist time at the trial of thecase. ‘+The contents ofthe confesion were affimed by the accused in his voluntary partkipation in the reenactment ofthe crime, 3s shown by bis silent acquiescence thereto + The facts contained in the confession were confirmed by ater subsequent fats. + Alter his confession, the accused was subjected to physical examination and there were no signs: of matreatment or the accused never complained thereof, but not where he failed to ‘amplsio. tothe judge on 2, reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment 2¢ he was Sila the custody of his torturers. iest.2* Where the verbal extajutial confession was made 19 Ent but was spontaneously made by the after the assault, the same is ‘the confession rule hut as part of the must be made with the assistance of counsel. insel must be independent and competent. A promise of immunity or leniency vitiates 2 confession if elven by the offended party or by the fiscal, but not if ‘given by a person whom the accused could not have ‘easonably expected to be able to comply with such promise, such as an investigator who is not 2 prosecuting oF could not bind the offended party which was a ‘corporation. Examples of Admissible Extrajudicial Confessions If the extrajudicial confession was obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution on January 17, 1973, the same i admissible in evidence even ifthe confessant Was not informed of his right to silence and to counsel as this constitutional mandate should be given a prospective, and not a retrospective effective and this doctrine applies even if the confession was made while the accused was under arest. ‘Understudy: Roxanne Tatique, Alexis Cimagala; Volunteers: Grace Excosi na Bianka Siva, Nash Marchomnsali. k Suarer 280r ‘Where, before the statement containing the extrajudicial confession of guilt was taken, the accused was asked whether he was fariiar with the provisions of Section 20, ‘Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution and he answered in the ‘affirmative, and the statement which he signed states that the had been apprised of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he would say might be used for or ‘against him in court, such extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence, especially where he thereafter {eiied to impugn the same by not taking the witness stand although assisted by counsel Where the accused voluntarily made a second extrajudicial confession after he had been maltreated in order to extort the first confession, such second confession is admissible only if t can be proved that he was already relieved of the ‘fear generated by the previous maltreatment. The entre confession shouldbe admitted in evidence bute the court may, in appreciating the same, seféct such portonsas are incredible. f Examples of inadmissible Extrajulicial Confessions Under the current rule, the confession tina there iss Vato fhe aces eh to od silence. ge ca himself of such rights, his extrajy inadmissible. % Where the extrajudi!confestion of the under custodial investigation was merely prefaced Investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights, to which he answered that he was going to tall the trth, the same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by ‘one when he signed the confession. His short answer does at show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked of him, especially where the accused i literate and it was not shown how his constitutional rights. were ‘explained by the investigator. Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of the ‘accused and, consequentiy, are inadmissible against them, with much more reason should the same be inadmissible ‘against third accused who had no participation therein, Any form of coercion, whether physical, mental or emational, Inadnissible, renders ‘the extrajudicial confession ee) aL OPERATIONS 2010 ee ty. Vinluan judge Bonifacio; Heads: Grea Fayiona, Maria Kristina Santos; Where the extrajudicial confession was obtained by mattreatment, the judgment based solely thereon is null and void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of habeas corpus. (GENERAL RULE: The extrajudicial confession of an accused 's binding only upon himself and is not admissible against tis co-aceused. EXCEPTIONS: 1. ifthe latter impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by not questioning its ‘truthfulness, as where it was made in his ‘presence and he did not remonstrate against his ‘being implicated therein; 2 if the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without collusion, commonly known as interlocking confessions which confessions are corroborated by other evidence and without contradiction by the coacased who was the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised of such 4. If they, are charged as co-conspirators of the 1 time which was confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used onty as ‘corroborating evidence; 5. MF ty are charged a5 co-conspirators of the ‘ Which was confessed by one of the and said confession is used only as a evidence; Where the confession is used as cicumstantial ‘xvidence to show the probability of participation bythe co-conspirator; 7. Where the confessant testified for his co- defendant; or Where the coconspirtor’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record. ‘This section, as now amended, declares as admissible the confession of the accused not only with respect to the offense charged but also any offense necessarily included therein. On the other and, the 1987 Constitution specifically provides that, legal confessions and ‘admissions are inadmissible against the confessant or the: admitter, hence they are admissible against the persons. who violated the constitutional prohibition against ‘obtaining illegal confessions or admissions. ‘Understudy: Roxanne Tadiaue, Alexis Cimagata; Volunteers: Grace Escosia, Ina Gianka Siva, Nash Marobomsai, K SuarerGENERAL RULE: Evidence that one did or did not do a Certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time. EXCEPTIONS: Where the evidence or similar acts may prove: [specific Intent or knowledge; Identity: ‘Aplan, system or scheme; A specific habit; Established customs, usages and the tke veeue Reason for the Rule To compel the defendant to meet charges of which the ed ED eS eee Section 35. Unaccepted offer This section complements the rule on tender of payment: (Art. 1256, Gul Code) by providing that said offer of payment must be made in writing Such tender of payment, must, however, be followed by consignation of the ‘amount in coutt in order to produce the effects of valid payment. ‘The rule covers: 1. Payment of sum of money — if the amount is short of the amount of liability or not in the ‘currency which is the legal tender bere in the Philippines, the creditor has a reason not to ‘accept the tender. Or even if the legal tender is ‘not that one to which the parties agreed 2. Delivery of document — if not that agreed Indictment gives him no information, confuses bim in his document, creditor may refuse acceptance; defense, raises a variety of tsue, and thus di 3. Delivery of personal property ~ creditor may attention of the court from the charge immedi before ‘refuse and tt doesnot amount to tender the it. ft is an-application of the principle thé the a! property is not that one agreed upon ‘must be confined to the point in issue 6the case on tial. ii Inother words, evidence of. must not be Delian offer does not release the debtor received as substantive evidence of ene gna ee Obligation but it can excuse the debtor from delivery. ee es Section 34 & the second branch ko ie ots * ‘aligs.acta and applies to both sal case tke the fst branch ies strictly at re ® EREG part. ; 5 Bs vie ies apleabl. Veer s \ Evidence of similar offenses involving the iki false representations, is admissible show that he is aware of the falsity ‘made by him in the present case and that to be false, he made them with intent to deceive. Evidence of a number of crimes is admissitle in a Prosecution for robbery where it has the tendency to ‘demity the accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime but not where the evidence is to prove that the: accused committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on tial. Previous acts of negligence, that i, selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorste, Is adeissible to show knowledge or intent. In Givi cases the rule as to proof of commission of an act by showing the commission of similar acts by the same person at other times and under other circumstances is ‘the same as ina criminal prosecution. 2 Valid unaccepted offer, the creditor shall absorb the circumstantial damages to the property. However; the debtor must prove that there is no negligence on his ént that the tender of payment must have without just cause by the creditor does not ply hat for the judicial authority to accept consignation ‘examine whether or not the creditor had @ just for refusing the tender. 1m order that the consignation of an amount or thing may bbe made, the refusal of the creditor of the tender of payment is enough, without regard to the reason for his ‘refusal, which will only be taken Into account to resolve defintely whether the consignation made will be efficacious against his opposition. Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded [HEARSAY RULE ‘Any evidence, whether oral or documentary is hearsay it its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge ‘of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person ot on the witness stand, SRébies Ry. Guevara Atty. Arroyo Atty. Salvoder ty Van luce Bonifacio; Head: Gass Fyn, Nari Kristina Santos; ‘Understudy: Roxanne Tadique, Alexis Cimagala; Volunteers: Grace Escosia Ina Bianka Siva, Nash Marchomsal, KSuarer