Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EVIDENCE: IV. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS - Coggle Diagram

- - - - D. EXCEPTIONS TO THE
        RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
        (PCA)
        
        E. CONFESSIONS
        
        CONFESSIONS
        
        SECTION 12.
        
        RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
        Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
        RIGHT TO COUNSEL
        If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
        
        CAN ONLY BE WAIVED IN WRITING AND IN PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
        
        RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHED TO START :alarm_clock: OF INVESTIGATION
        However, the Court adopted its view in Gamboa vs Cruz, where the Court ruled that “the right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit info and/or confessions or admissions from respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the harmful practice of extorting forced or coerced admissions or confessions.”
        
        NO FORCE/INTIMIDATION
        No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
        NO SECRET/SOLITARY/INCOMMMUNICADO DETENTION PLACES
        Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
        
        INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
        IF VIOLATED
        Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
        
        1 more item...
        
        VIOLENCE NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED; PRESSURE CAN BE ENOUGH
        We are not persuaded that when they testified, they voluntarily waived their constitutional rights not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves much less their right to remain silent. llcd
        "Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements
        Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So is moral coercion tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant.'"
        ||| (Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208-09, 71212-13, [August 30, 1985], 222 PHIL 588-680)
        
        SECTION 17.
        NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF
        No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
        
        APPLIES TO ALL CASES, NOT JUST CRIMINAL
        The deletion of the phrase "in a criminal case" connotes no other import except to make said provision also applicable to cases other than criminal.
        (Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208-09, 71212-13, [August 30, 1985], 222 PHIL 588-680)
        
        ANY PERSON UNDER ANY KIND OF "INVESTIGATION" IS ENTITLED TO THESE RIGHTS
        The fact that the framers of our Constitution did not choose to use the term "custodial" by having it inserted between the words "under" and investigation", as in fact the sentence opens with the phrase "any person" goes to prove that they did not adopt in toto the entire fabric of the Miranda doctrine. 24 Neither are we impressed by petitioners' contention that the use of the word "confession" in the last sentence of said Section 20, Article 4 connotes the idea that it applies only to police investigation, for although the word "confession" is used, the protection covers not only "confessions" but also "admissions" made in violation of this section. They are inadmissible against the source of the confession or admission and against third person. 25||| (Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208-09, 71212-13, [August 30, 1985], 222 PHIL 588-680)
        
        ACCUSED'S DECLARATION ADMISSIBLE IF:
        
        ACKNOWLEDGING GUILT OF OFFENSE:
        a. CHARGED
        b. NECESSARILY INCLUDED THEREIN
        Rule 130(?) 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. (33a)
        
        EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
        INSUFFICIENT BY ITSELF
        Rule 133, Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. – An extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
        
        UNLESS
        CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE OF CORPUS DELICTI
        
        VALIDITY BASED ON VOLUNTARINESS
        The basic test for the validity of a confession is W/N it was voluntarily and freely made. (People v. Satorre)
        
        2 more items...
        
        UNCOUNSELLED EXTRAJUICIAL CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE ENTIRELY
        MAY BE IN FORM OF
        
        STATEMENTS, DECLARATIONS
        However, the Court adopted its view in Gamboa vs Cruz, where the Court ruled that “the right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit info and/or confessions or admissions from respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the harmful practice of extorting forced or coerced admissions or confessions.”
        
        SIGNATURES (CEREAL BOXES)
        The SC acquitted Ming and Cheung. By affixing their signatures on the cereal boxes and on the plastic bags, Ming and Cheung, in effect, made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession of "shabu" is punished by law. These signatures are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence.
        
        A careful study of the records reveals that Ming and Cheung were never informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time that they were under investigation. Specifically, they were not informed of their Miranda rights (i.e. that they had the right to remain silent and to counsel and any statement they might make could be used against them) when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already taken in custody at Camp Crame.
        
        PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE ONLY
        At any rate, an extrajudicial confession forms but a prima facie case against the party by whom it is made
        (People v. Satorre)
        
        "VOLUNTARY" MEANS:
        “Voluntary” means:
        
        FREE WILL
         that the accused speaks of his free will and accord,
        
        NO INDUCEMENT OF ANY KIND
         without inducement of any kind, and
        
        FULL & COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONFESSION
         with a full and complete knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession, and
        
        FREE FROM INFLUENCES AT TIME CONFESSION WAS MADE
         when the speaking is so free from influences affecting the will of the accused, at the time the confession was made, that it renders it admissible
        in evidence against him.
        
        INTELLIGENCE
        The intelligence of the accused or want of it must also be taken into account. It must be shown that the defendant realized the import of his act
        
        PARTNER'S/AGENT'S ADMISSIONS
        
        CO-CONSPIRATOR'S STATEMENTS
        
        ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
        
        PRIVIES' ADO ADMISSIBLE IF:
        
        PERSON DERIVES TITLE FROM HIM
        
        WHILE SUCH PERSON WAS HOLDING TITLE
        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)
        
        PRIVIES ENCOMPASSES:
        
        PARTIES
        
        ASSIGNS
        
        HEIRS
        
        SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST
        The meaning of the term “privies” (causahabientes) in OCC 1225 is found in the Commentary of Manresa: "The said word 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 intervivos, and for special purposes; hence, an assignee of a credit, and one subrogated to it, etc., 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."
        (Alpuerto v. Perez)
        
        PRIVITY WITH A PARTY TO THE RECORD
        The declarations of a person are admissible against a party whenever a "privity of estate" exists between the declarant and the party, the term "privity of estate" generally denoting a succession in rights. Consequently, an admission of one in privity with a party to the record is competent. Without doubt, privity exists among the respondents in this case. And where several co-parties to the record are jointly interested in the subject matter of the controversy, the admission of one is competent against all.||| (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, [July 15, 2003], 453 PHIL 1059-1150)
        
        CO-CONSPIRATOR'S A/D MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE IF:
        
        FURTHERANCE OF CONSPIRACY
        
        DURING ITS EXISTENCE
        
        PROVEN CONSPIRACY BY EVIDENCE
        a. OTHER THAN SUCH A/D
        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)
        
        EXCLUDES:
        
        CONFESSIONS MADE LONG AFTER CONSPIRACY (NOT DURING EXISTENCE)
        "The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to 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 or declaration," refers to statements made by one conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise ("during its existence") and in furtherance of its object, and not to a confession made long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end (U.S. vs. Empeinado, 9 Phil., 613; U.S. vs. Raymundo, 14 Phil., 416; People vs. Badilla, 48 Phil., 718; People vs. Napkil, 52 Phil., 985).||| (People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181, [November 28, 1955], 97 PHIL 940-947)
        
        EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN COURT BY CO-CONSPIRATOR'S
        a. LIKE DIRECT TESTIMONY
        Evidence adduced in court by co-conspirators, as witnesses, are NOT declarations of conspirators but direct testimony to the facts to which they testify.
        Rule 130, Sec. 31 is applicable only when it is sought to introduce extrajudicial declarations and statements of co-conspirators"
        
        APPLIES TO EXTRAJUDICIAL DECLARANTS & STATEMENTS
        
        JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST CO-CONSPIRATORS
        An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the declarant's co-accused since the co-accused are afforded opportunity to cross-examine the declarant
        In this case, Mercene's admission implicating his co-accused was given on the witness stand. It is admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon.
        
        RATIO: OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE DECLARANT
        
        TESTIMONY OF CO-ACCUSED ADMISSIBLE AGAINST CO-ACCUSED
        Moreover, where several accused are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating his co-accused is competent evidence against the latter
        
        PARTNER/AGENT'S A/D ADMISSIBLE IF:
        
        AUTHORIZED BY PARTY
        a. TO MAKE A STATEMENT
        -i. CONCERNING THE SUBJECT
        -ii. WITHIN SCHOPE OF AUTHORITY
        -iii. DURING EXISTENCE OF PARTNERSHIP/AGENCY
        
        PROVEN PARTNERSHIP/AGENCY BY EVIDENCE
        Rule 130 Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent. – The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or within the scope of his or her authority[,] and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
        
        ALSO APPLIES TO A/D OF: (ODI)
        
        JOINT OWNER
        
        JOINT DEBTOR
        
        JOINTLY INTERESTED PERSON
        a. JVAs (Narra Nickel Mining Dev't Corp)
        The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. (29a)
        
        JVAs ARE JOINTLY INTERESTED PERSONS UNDER RULE 130, SEC. 30
        Thus, a joint venture agreement between and among corporations may be seen as similar to partnerships since the elements of partnership are present. The JVAs entered by Pets corps with MBMI have the elements of partnership, they may be deemed as 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.
        (Narra Nickel Mining and Dev’t Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp.)
        
        ADMISSIONS OF AGENT ARE BINDING AGAINST PRINCIPAL
        Under our rules of evidence, admissions of an agent (Secretary Angara) are binding on the principal (petitioner).||| Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego of the petitioner. He was the Little President. Indeed, he was authorized by the petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and days before he abandoned Malacañang Palace. |||
        (Estrada v. Desierto)
        
        Rule 138, Section 23
        Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. — Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
      - RIGHTS OF A PARTY CANNOT BE PREJUDICED BY:
        
        ADO OF ANOTHER
        Section 29. Admission by third party. – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (28)
        
        INADMISSIBLE:
        
        EVID OF DEED DONE NOT DONE AT ONE POINT IN TIME
        a. TO PROVE DONE NOT DONE AT ANOTHER TIME
        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;
        
        MAY PROVE:
        
        SPECIFIC INTENT
        
        KNOWLEDGE
        
        IDENTITY
        
        PLAN
        
        SYSTEM
        
        SCHEME
        
        HABIT
        
        CUSTOM
        
        USAGE
        
        SIMILAR
        but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (34a)
        
        EXCEPTION:
        
        PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
        Res inter alios acta constitutes a technical rule on evidence which should not be rigidly applied in the course of preliminary investigation proceedings.
        
        AS PROVIDED BY ROC
        
        LIST OF ANOTHER'S ADO UNDER RIAA:
        
        EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
        a. BY ANOTHER
        Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. 32 Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused 33 and is considered as hearsay against them.||| (Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, [January 19, 2010], 624 PHIL 312-329)
        
        EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS
        One of the perpetrators, Amado Ponce was caught and he gave the identities of the other two perpetrators which were the Raquel brothers and the trial court held them guilty.
        A thorough review of the records of this case readily revealed that the identification of herein Raquel Brothers as the culprits was based chiefly on the extrajudicial statement of accused Amado Ponce pointing to them as his co-perpetrators of the crime. • Ponce escaped from jail before he could testify in court and he has been at large since then.
      - RATIONALE: GOOD FAITH & MUTUAL CONVENIENCE
        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.||| (Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, [January 19, 2010], 624 PHIL 312-329)
        
        EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION W/O COUNSEL ARE INADMISSIBLE
        Extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of the case. While the right to counsel may be waived, such waiver must be made with the assistance of counsel
        
        PI, RATIO FOR NOT APPLYING RIAA:
        ONLY CONDUCTED TO FIND PROBABLE CAUSE, WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND ON MERITS OF PARTY'S EVIDENCE
        Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person charged should be held responsible for it.
        Being merely based on opinion and belief, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
        the determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a party's accusation or defense or on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented.
        
        PROBABLE CAUSE CAN BE ESTABLISHED WITH EHAR SAY EVIDENCE
        probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay."
        (Estrada v. Ombudsman (Estrada))
    - - CRIMINAL CASES:
        OFFER TO COMPROMISE =
        ADMISSION OF GUILT
        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.
        
        PLEA OF GUILTY WITHDRAWN/UNACCEPTED INADMISSIBLE AGAINST ACCUSED
        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.
        
        INADMISSIBLE IN BOTH CIVIL & CRIM CASES
        
        OFFER TO PAY
        
        PAYMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR INJURY
        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)
        
        PLEA BARGAINING STATEMENTS RESULTING:
        
        NO PLEA OF GUILY
        
        WITHDRAWN PLEA OF GUILTY
        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.
        
        EXCEPT IF: QL-RUNE-NM
        
        QUASI-OFFENSES (CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE)
        
        LAW-SANCTIONED COMPROMISE
        
        REBUTTED BY ACCUSED AS MADE:
        a. NOT UNDER CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT
        b. MERELY TO AVOID INCONVENIENCE OF IMPRISONMENT OR SOME REASON
        c.JUSTIFYING A CLAIM THAT
        OTC WAS NOT ADMISSION OF GUILT
        
        UNAUTHORIZED PERSON MADE OTC
        An offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot amount to an admission of the party himself
        
        NOT PRESENT WHEN OTC MADE
        for a compromise to amount to an implied admission of guilt, the accused should have been present or at least authorized the proposed compromise. o Moreover, it has been held that where the accused was not present at the time the offer for monetary consideration was made, such offer of compromise would not save the day for the prosecution
        
        EFFORTS TO ARRIVE AT SETTLEMENT
        a. OUTSIDE OF COURT
        b. ACCORDS w ESTABLISHED TRIBAL CUSTOMS
        c. ACCUSED TOOK NO PART IN NEGOTIATIONS
        o no implied admission can be drawn from the efforts to arrive at a settlement outside the court, where the accused did not take part in any of the negotiations and the effort to settle the case was in accordance with the established tribal customs
        
        NO EXPRESS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LIABILITY
        a. MERE RECEIPT OF SOA ACKNOWLEDGED
        The letter does not contain an express acknowledgment of liability o At most, what Kalalo acknowledged was the receipt of the statement of account o NOT the existence of her liability to SMC
        
        MADE PRIOR TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
        a. NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
        
        NOT BEING PRESENT WHEN MONETARY CONSIDERATION WAS MADE WHEN OFFER TO COMPROMISE (idk what this means)
        where the accused was not present at the time the offer for monetary consideration was made, such offer of compromise would not save the day for the prosecution
        
        PLEA FOR FORGIVENESS ANALOGOUS TO ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE
        A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise
        
        RATIONALE: NO ONE ASKS FOR FORGIVENESS UNLESS HE DID A WRONG
        No one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong, for to forgive means to absolve, to pardon, to cease to feel resentment against on account of wrong committed; give up claim to requital from or retribution upon (an offender)
        
        EVEN IF 3RD PERSON PLEADED FOR FORGIVENESS, NOT DISOWNING THIS RESULTS IN ADMISSION
        SC said that the fact that Gener did not disown their acts or deny their testimony shows that Gener was a party to the decision to seek for forgiveness, or had prior knowledge of the plan and consented to pursue it, or confirmed and ratified the act of his parents, wife, children and sister-in-law.
        
        UNATHORIZED PERSON TO OTC
        An offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot amount to an admission of the party himself
        
        OTC MAY BE MADE BEFORE COMPLAINT AND DEEMED ADMISSION OF GUILT:
        
        AFTER COMMITTING :alarm_clock: THE CRIME
        a. OFFEROR'S AWARENESS OF CRIME
        
        OFFER MADE BY
        a. ACCUSED
        b. REPRESENTATIVE
        
        PROVEN OFFER
        An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after committing the crime, the accused or his representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer is proved.
        
        SC held that an offer to compromise was really made, even if the offer was given prior to the filing of the criminal charges against Yparraguirre also because Mary Ann was aware of the crime when she gave the offer.
        (People v. Yparraguirre)
        
        SMC SAYS OTC BEFORE CRIM COMPLAINT = NO ADMISSION; YPARRAGUIRRE SAYS THERE IS ADMISSION
        In SMC, the OTC was not made in the context of a criminal proceeding: there was a threat of filing a complaint for BP 22 because of a Stop Payment Order; an OTC was then made, then only after was a complaint filed. In Yparraguirre, rape happened and the same order facts happened: act, otc, complaint. The difference seen is that in Yparraguirre, there was awareness of a crime (rape) but in SMC there was a mere stop payment order and a threat to file a complaint.
        SMC v. Kalalo | People v. Yparraguirre
      - CONDUCT & STATEMENTS IN NEGOTIATION INADMISSIBLE
        Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations admissible,
        
        EXCEPT: DOAO
        
        DISCOVERABLE OTHERWISE; OR
        
        OFFERED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS TO PROVE:
        a. BIAS
        b. PREJUDICE OF WITNESS
        c. NEGATING UNDUE DELAY
        d. EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION/PROSECUTION
        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.
        
        AMOUNT IN OFFER ARRIVED AT USING A:
        a. FAIR ESTIMATE OF VALUE
        b. NO DENIAL OF LIABLITY
        -i. WHETHER EXPRESS or IMPLIED
        c. ONLY QUESTIONS DISCUSSED RELATE TO AMOUNT TO BE PAID
        (El Varadero de Manila v. Insular Lumber Co.)
        however, the amount named in the offer to accept a certain sum in settlement appears to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of value, it is relevant. b. The rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations does not apply where there is no denial expressed or implied of liability, and the only questions discussed relate to the amount to be paid.
        
        OFFER TO COMPROMISE = ADMISSION IF:
        a. ADMIT EXISTENCE OF DEBT
        b. OFFER SETTLEMENT
        If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such indebtedness
        (Luciano Tan v. Rodil Enterprises)
  - - - SILENCE AS ADMISSION REQS: (CRIM)
        
        HEARD & UNDERSTOOD THE STATEMENT
        
        LIBERTY TO INTERPOSE DENIAL
        
        STATEMENT WAS:
        a. AFFECTING HIS RIGHTS/INTEREST
        b. NATURALLY CALLING FOR ANSWER
        
        KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS ADMITTED TO
        
        MATERIAL TO ISSUE IS HIS ADMISSION
        The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. But before the silence of a party can be taken as an admission of what is said, it must appear:
        
        that he heard and understood the statement;
        
        that he was at liberty to interpose a denial;
        
        that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer;
        
        that the facts were within his knowledge; and
        
        that the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue
      - APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASES
        (People v. Paragsa)
      - AGAINST OWN INTEREST
        ADMISSIONS AGAINST OWN INTEREST AFFORD THE GREATEST CERTAINTY
        Alusitain’s letter of resignation and Affidavit of Separation which he admittedly voluntarily executed constitute admissions against his own interest.
        These documents belie his claim that he retired on January 31, 1995.
        Being an admission against interest, the documents are the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.
        
        RATIONALE: NO ONE WOULD DECLARE AGAINST HIMSELF UNLESS IT IS TRUE
        The rationale for this is the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration was true.
        Thus, it is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.
        
        RECKONED AS DISSERVING
        AT THE TIME IT IS OFFERED :alarm_clock: IN EVIDENCE, NOT WHEN ADMISSION IS MADE
        The disserving quality of the admission is judged as of the time it is used or offered in evidence and not when such admission is made.
        
        REBUTTABLE BY DECLARANT
        Admissions against interest may be refuted by the declarant.
        
        ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
        
        REACTION OF PARTY
        a. TO STATEMENT/ACT
        
        BY ANOTHER PERSON
        
        REASONABLE TO TREAT REACTION AS:
        a. ADMISSION OF THING STATED/IMPLIED
        Adoptive admission - party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
        
        RATIONALE: RATIFICATION & ADOPTION
        Jones: the “basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the ratification or adoption by the party of the statements w/c the other made.”
        Mueller and Kirkpatrick: This process of attribution is not mumbo jumbo, but common sense.
        
        IS THIS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION?
        REPUBLIC V. KENDRICK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION suggests it is
        
        LIST OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSIONS:
        
        EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO ORAL STATEMENT
        
        REPEATING STATEMENT
        
        UTTERS ACCEPTANCE
        
        BUILDS ON ASSERTION OF ANOTHER
        
        PARTIAL REBUTTAL
        a. REBUTTING SOME POINTS
        b. IGNORING OTHERS HE HEARD
        
        READS & SIGNS A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ANOTHER
        a. INCLUDES ATTY GIVING GENERAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN
        
        (a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another; - (b) hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it - (c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another; - (d) replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points which he or she has heard the other make - (e) reads and signs a written statement made by another.
        
        EFFECT: 3RD PERSON'S STATEMENT = ADMISSION OF PARTY ESPOUSING IT
        By adoptive admission, a third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing it.
        
        ATTY MAY GIVE GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR ANYONE TO SIGN THE ANSWER FOR HIM
        REGARDLESS OF WHO ACTUALLY SIGNED
        While the Rules of Court requires that a pleading must be signed by the party or his counsel, it does not prohibit a counsel from giving a general authority for any person to sign the answer for him which was what Atty. Garlitos did.
        The person who actually signed the pleading was of no moment as long as counsel knew that it would be signed by another.
        This was similar to addressing an authorization letter "to whom it may concern" such that any person could act on it even if he or she was not known beforehand.
        
        Atty. Garlitos testified that he prepared the answer; he never disowned its contents and he resumed acting as counsel for Kendrick subsequent to its filing.
        These circumstances show that Atty. Garlitos conformed to or ratified the signing of the answer by another.
    - - RATIONALE: ONE NEED NOT CROSS-EXAMINE HIMSELF
        Retired J. Oscar Herrera of the CA (re: why admissions are not covered by the hearsay rule): Wigmore argued that a party’s declaration had a special value when offered against the party… “He does not need to cross-examine himself.” ○ According to Morgan: A party cannot object that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself or that he is unworthy of credence, save when speaking under sanctions of an oath
      - ANGARA DIARY
        Estrada now argues that the Angara Diary, which the Court used to determine Estrada’s state of mind at the time, is inadmissible for being hearsay. Court disagreed w/ him, ruling that the Diary is admissible as it contains direct statements of Estrada w/c can be categorized as admissions of a party. Thus, his MR and Omnibus Motion were denied.
- - - - EJ-CONFESSIONS ONLY ADMISSIBLE AGAINST DECLARANT
        Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused 33 and is considered as hearsay against them.
        Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. 32