A dead man is not a patient capable of sustaining the relation of
confidence toward his physician which is the foundation of the rule
given in the statute, but is a mere piece of senseless clay which has
passed beyond the reach of human prescription, medical or otherwise.
Moreover, the deceased had not in life been the patient of the
physician.
PROBLEM:
In an annulment case, the physician of an insane asylum testified that
the defendant-wife was a patient in the asylum, and stayed there for a
certain length of time. The physician further testified that the defendant
came to the asylum without a baby and left with one.
Does this testimony involve privilege communication?
ANSWER:
No, because the same is not an information necessary for the proper
treatment of the patient. The matters stated are nothing but casual
informations of the witnesses, which are not included in the privilege.
PRIEST AND PENITENT
REQUISITES OF PRIVILEGE:
1. The confession must have been made to the priest or minister in his
professional capacity according to the discipline of the church to which
the priest or minister belongs.
2. The communication made must be confidential and must be
penitential in character. e.g., under the seal of the confessional.
(Regalado, Vol. II, p. 752, 2008 ed.)
When is the privilege inapplicable?
When the communication is not penitential in character as when what
is divulged is the plan to commit a crime.
PUBLIC OFFICERS
STATEMENT OF THE RULE
A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or
afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence,
when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the
disclosure.
REQUISITES FOR APPLICATION
OF PRIVILEGE:
1. The communication must have been made to a public officer.
2. The communication was given to the public officer in official
confidence.
3. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication. (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 752, 2008 ed.)
QUESTION:
When is the privilege inapplicable?
ANSWER:
The privilege is NOT applicable if what is asked:
1. is useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an accused.
2. lessen the risk of false testimony.
3. is essential to the proper disposition of the litigation.
4. the benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the litigation was
greater than any injury which could inure to the relation by a disclosure
of the information.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE refers to certain types of information like
military, diplomatic, and other national security matters which may be
withheld from the public because of their sensitive nature.
OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS
1. The guardian ad litem may not testify in any proceeding concerning
any information, statement, or opinion received from the child in the
course of serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it
necessary to promote the best interests of the child. [Sec. 5 (e), Rule
on Examination of a Child Witness]
2. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted.
3. Editors, publishers, or duly accredited reporters of any newspaper,
magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news report or any information given to them
in confidence, unless a court or the Congress or a committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded for State security.
(R.A. 1477)
4. Trade secrets cannot be disclosed although this is not absolute as
the court may compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing
justice (Francisco, p. 335, 1992 ed.)
5. Bank deposits are absolutely confidential in nature, except upon
written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or
upon lawful order of a competent court. (RA 1405; Francisco, p. 335,
1992 ed.)
6. Conciliators, mediators and similar officials shall not testify in any
court or body regarding any matter taken up at the conciliation
proceedings conducted by them. (Art. 233, Labor Code)
7. Informers, for the protection of their identity, cannot be compelled to
testify by the prosecutor when their testimony would merely be
cumulative and corroborative. (Herrera, Vol. V, p. 353, 1999 ed.)
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions,
and from harsh or insulting demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require.
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the
issue.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty
for an offense. (right against self-incrimination)
MCQ:
In a homicide action, Prosecution calls Bystander to testify. Claiming
the privilege against self-incrimination, Bystander refuses to answer a
question on whether he was at the scene when the crime was
committed. Prosecution moves that Bystander be ordered to answer
the question. The judge should allow Bystander to remain SILENT
only if:
a. The judge is convinced that he will incriminate himself.
b. There is clear and convincing evidence that he will incriminate
himself.
c. There is preponderance of evidence that he will incriminate
himself.
The judge believes that there is some reasonable possibility that he
will incriminate himself.
(d) is correct because the law requires only some reasonable
possibility of self-incrimination.
KINDS OF IMMUNITY
USE IMMUNITY
Prohibits the use of the witness' compelled testimony and its fruits in
any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY
Grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to
which his compelled testimony relates.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION:
The right pertains only to natural persons and with respect to
testimonial compulsion only.
The right may be invoked in all kinds of proceedings where testimony
is to be taken, including investigation by legislative bodies.
The right is a prohibition against the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communications from the accused.
It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the
accused’s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. (Ong v.
Sandiganbayan & Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 126858, Sept.
16, 2005)
PROBLEM:
Abe is arrested for driving a car while intoxicated.
As part of a new program adopted by the government, the police take
a videotape of Abe as he attempts to walk a straight line and touch his
nose at the time of the arrest.
The prosecution seeks to introduce this tape at Abe’s trial. Abe objects
on grounds that the videotape is irrelevant, immaterial, and violates his
right against self-incrimination. Decide.
ANSWER:
The videotape is admissible as relevant evidence not excluded by any
rule.
The videotape is relevant evidence because it tends to establish the
likelihood that Abe was intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
More importantly, the videotape does not violate Abe’s right against
self-incrimination because the right against self-incrimination applies
only to testimonial evidence. Abe in the problem was not made to
testify against his will.
Distinguish the right against self-incrimination of the accused
from that of an ordinary witness.
ACCUSED:
Cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal
case in which he is the accused or one of the accused; he cannot be
compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the
court. He cannot be required to testify either for the prosecution, for his
co-accused or even for himself.
ORDINARY WITNESS:
May be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to
refuse to answer a particular incriminating question at the time it is put
to him.
QUESTION:
Pedro, a government official, is invited by the Senate to appear as a
resource person in a public hearing in one of its committees. Because
Pedro declined the invitation, the Senate places him under arrest for
contempt and detains him. Pedro claims that his arrest and detention
violate his right against self-incrimination.
Is Pedro correct?
ANSWER:
No. The right against self-incrimination may only be invoked when the
incriminating question is being asked because Pedro has no way of
knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked.
That this right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for
denying the Senate committees their power of inquiry. (In Re: Sabio,
G.R. No. 174340, Oct. 17, 2006)
PROBLEM:
Rey, owner of a jewelry store, employs Abe and Bea as sales clerks.
One day, Abe reported to Rey that he saw Bea stealing pieces of
jewelry from the store. Rey then discharged Bea and brought an
action against her for the value of various pieces of jewelry missing
from the store.
At trial, Rey calls Abe as his first witness. Abe testifies that he “does
not remember” either having seen Bea take anything from the store or
having told Rey that she had done so. Rey then takes the witness
stand and proposes to testify to what Abe had told him about seeing
Bea stealing pieces of jewelry from the store.
Rey then calls Bea as a hostile witness, and asks her one question -- if
it is true that she has stolen jewelry from his store. Bea refuses to
answer, claiming a privilege against self-incrimination. Can Bea be
compelled to answer the question?
ANSWER:
No. Bea is privileged to refuse to answer the question posed by Rey
because a witness may refuse to answer any question the answer to
which might tend to incriminate her.
Testimony is incriminating if it ties a witness to the commission of a
crime or would furnish a lead to evidence tying the witness to a crime.
The privilege against compelled self-incrimination can be claimed at
any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, at which the witness’s
appearance and testimony are compelled.
Here, Bea’s answer to a question whether she stole jewelry from the
store might tend to incriminate her by tying her to the commission of a
crime (e.g., theft). (Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 Const.)
PROBLEM:
Abe, a married person, is a witness in a murder case. At trial, he is
asked by the defense counsel about his whereabouts a few hours
before the murder incident. Abe was actually with his mistress in a
motel during that time; and revealing his whereabouts in court
would result in domestic turbulence.
Can Abe rightfully invoke the privilege against self-incrimination?
However, he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution and cannot be
subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or
thing concerning his compelled testimony or evidence. (Sec. 14, R.A.
6981)
STATE WITNESS:
Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and
desires to be a witness for the State, may apply and may be admitted
into the witness protection program if the following circumstances are
present:
1. the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as
defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under
special laws.
2. there is absolute necessity for the testimony.
3. there is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed.
4. his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material
points.
5. he does not appear to be the most guilty.
6. he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving
moral turpitude.
ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

ANSWER: What is the order in the examination of an individual witness?

No. Abe can invoke the privilege only if there is a possibility of a What are the purposes of each stage of the examination?
criminal prosecution against him, but not in cases of possible
embarrassment. 1. DIRECT EXAMINATION
It is, therefore, Abe’s civic duty and obligation to answer the question 2. CROSS EXAMINATION
asked, even if by doing so it would possibly embarrass him. 3. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
4. RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
Is the right against self-incrimination available to a witness who
has been admitted to the WPP? DIRECT EXAMINATION:
No. A witness admitted under the witness program CANNOT refuse to Examination in chief of a witness by a party presenting him on the
testify or give evidence for the prosecution of the offense or offenses facts relevant to the issue.
for which he has been admitted into the program on the ground of PURPOSE:
constitutional right against self-incrimination. To elicit facts about the client’s cause of action or defense.
 English rule.
CROSS EXAMINATION:
Examination by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct EXCEPTION:
examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and
freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from The American rule is observed with respect to cross-examination of an
interest, or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all facts bearing upon the accused or a hostile witness.
issue.
PURPOSE: RE-CROSS EXAMINATION:
To impeach the credibility of the testimony; to impeach the credibility Re-examination by the adverse party on the witness on matters stated
of the witness; to elicit admissions; and to clarify certain matters. in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be
allowed by the court in its discretion.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION: PURPOSE:
Re-examination by the party presenting the witness to explain or To rebut damaging evidence brought out during cross-examination.
supplement his answers given on cross-examination. Questions on
matters not dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by If the witness was partially cross-examined, but died before the
the court in its discretion. completion of his cross-examination, his testimony on direct may be
PURPOSE: stricken out but only with respect to the testimony not covered by the
cross-examination. (People v. Señeris, G.R. No. L-48883, Aug. 6,
To allow the witness to explain or amplify his testimony during cross- 1980)
examination; and to explain any apparent contradiction or
inconsistency in his statements. The absence of a witness is not sufficient to warrant the striking out of
his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination where
SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION the witness has already been sufficiently cross-examined, and the
matter on which cross-examination is sought is not in controversy.
ENGLISH RULE: (Ibid.)
If a witness is called to testify to a particular fact, he becomes a
witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all Is the party who offered the testimony of a witness bound by the
matters material to the issue, the examination not being confined to testimony?
the matters inquired about in the direct examination.
AMERICAN RULE: GENERAL RULE:
Cross-examination is restricted to facts and circumstances which are Yes.
connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct
examination of the witness. EXCEPTIONS:
When the witness is the:
What rule is observed in our jurisdiction? 1. adverse party;
GENERAL RULE: 2. hostile witness;
3. unwilling witness; or
4. a forced witness.
Who is a hostile witness?
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared
by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified
reluctance to testify or his having misled the party into calling him to
the witness stand. (Sec. 12)
LEADING/MISLEADING QUESTIONS
What is a leading question?
A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires. It is not allowed except:
1. On cross-examination.
2. On preliminary matters.
3. When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers
from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble mind or a deaf-mute.
4. To unwilling witness or hostile witness.
5. Witness is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.
PROBLEM:
On direct examination, Atty. Abe asks his witness this question: “State
whether anything transpired between you and the defendants on the
17th of May 2008.” Is this a leading question?
ANSWER:
No, it is not. A question that merely suggests a subject without
suggesting an answer or a specific thing is not a leading question.
MCQ:
Abe is new to the practice of law and at his first trial, he had terrible
problems deciding when to object and when to keep his mouth shut.
He tried to remember the basics about direct and cross-examination
that he had learned in law school. But at trial the questions came too
fast and furious; it was hard for him to keep up.
Which question below should have gotten Abe off his chair and to his
feet to object that opposing counsel was leading the witness?
1. On direct examination, the opposing counsel asked his client:
“You reside at 22 ABC St., Baguio City, don’t you?”
2. On direct examination, the opposing counsel asked his client:
“Isn’t it true that you were born on August 23, 1980?”
3. On cross-examination of Abe’s client, the opposing counsel asked
Abe’s client: “You used illegal drugs in college, didn’t you?”
4. On direct examination, the opposing counsel asked his client:
“Isn’t it true that you saw that the defendant did not slow down at
the intersection?”
PROBLEM:
A damage suit depended on whether the defendant was actually the
man driving the identified vehicle at the time of the accident. It was
established that others had access to the vehicle so that it was
important to identify the person driving at that time.
The plaintiff’s lawyer asked a witness on direct examination if he saw
the driver in the courtroom, and while asking that question the lawyer
pointed, almost instinctively, to the area where the defendant was
seated and to the defendant. The witness agreed with the pointing,
and said, “Yes, that’s him!”
The defendant vehemently objected and moved that the testimony be
excluded, claiming that this was unfair leading of the witness into
answering the ultimate issue of identity. The trial court denied the
objection.
How would the appellate court rule on the issue?
ANSWER:
The appellate court would most likely exclude the testimony.
The plaintiff's attorney manipulated the witness's testimony on the
ultimate issue of who was driving the car by impermissibly leading the
witness to identify the opposing party.
A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires. It is not allowed except on cross-
examination and on preliminary matters.
Here, the pointing by counsel to the defendant as the driver of the
vehicle in question amounted to a leading question. (Sec. 10, Rule
132)
What is misleading question?
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously
stated. It is not allowed, unless it is validly waived or when asking
hypothetical questions to an expert witness.
IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY
What is impeachment of a witness?
It is a technique employed usually as part of cross-examination to
discredit a witness’ testimony by attacking his credibility. (Riano,
Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 323, 2009 ed.)
What are the methods to impeach the adverse party’s witness?
1. By contradictory evidence
2. By evidence that the witness’ general reputation for truth, honesty,
or integrity is bad.
3. By prior inconsistent statements. (“laying the predicate“)
BY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
Refers to the prior testimony of the same witness or other evidence
presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of other
witnesses.
BY EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESS’ GENERAL REPUTATION
FOR TRUTH, HONESTY, OR INTEGRITY IS BAD.
Since the weight of the witness’ testimony depends on his credibility,
he may be impeached by impairing his credibility by showing his not
pleasing reputation but only as regards his reputation for truth,
honesty or integrity
BY PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
Statements, oral or documentary, made by the witness sought to be
impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying
What are the other modes of impeachment?
1. By showing the improbability or the unreasonableness of the
testimony;
2. By showing bias, prejudice, and hostility;
3. By prior inconsistent acts or conduct;
4. By showing social connections, occupation, and manner of living;
or
5. By showing interest. (Francisco, pp. 480-481, 1992 ed.)
May a witness be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful
acts?
GENERAL RULE: A witness may not be impeached by evidence of
particular wrongful acts.
EXCEPTION: If it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or
the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.
PROBLEM:
Susan is on trial for the murder of her husband. She is accused of
pushing him from the window of their high-rise condominium unit.
Susan claims he committed suicide. Mary, Susan’s friend, is called to
testify that Susan had told her that she pushed her husband from the
window.
Susan takes the stand to testify on her own behalf. On cross-
examination, the prosecutor asks her, “Isn’t it true that you were
convicted of estafa six years ago?”
Is the question proper?
ANSWER:
Yes. A criminal defendant who takes the stand puts her credibility in
issue the same as any other witness; thus, she may be impeached by
proof of prior conviction of a crime.
Susan cannot even invoke the right against self-incrimination because
the question is not even directed to any matter on which she can be
incriminated. (Sec. 11, Rule 132)
May a party impeach his own witness?
As a general rule, no may not.
EXCEPTION:
The witness is an:
1. unwilling or adverse witness so declared by the court;
2. adverse party; or
3. officer of the adverse party who is a juridical person.
IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS
What is the procedure for impeaching a witness by evidence of
prior inconsistent statements?
1. The witness must be confronted with such statements with the
circumstances of the time, place, and persons present in which
they were made;
2. The witness must be asked whether he made such statements,
and if so, allowed to explain them; and
3. If the statement is in writing, it must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him concerning them.
NOTE:
1. This procedure is also called the rule on LAYING THE
PREDICATE.
2. If the previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of
an admission, and not merely to impeach him, the rule on laying
the predicate does not apply.
What is the purpose of laying the predicate?
The purpose is to allow the witness to admit or deny the prior
statement and afford him an opportunity to explain it.
Non-compliance with the foundational elements for this mode of
impeachment will be a ground for an objection based on “improper
impeachment.”
Over a timely objection, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent
statement without the required foundation is not admissible.
LAYING THE PREDICATE vs. LAYING THE FOUNDATION
LAYING THE PREDICATE:
Refers only to impeachment of a witness through prior inconsistent
statements.
LAYING THE FOUNDATION:
Refers to a situation where evidence which is otherwise incompetent
will be introduced into evidence because it falls under the rules of
exclusion.
EXAMPLE:
Under the best evidence rule, a party must first prove that a writing
was duly executed and that the original has been lost or destroyed.
Without first laying the foundation, secondary evidence will not be
admitted by the court.
Is evidence of good character of a witness admissible?
GENERAL RULE: No, it is not.
EXCEPTION: Unless such character has been impeached.
PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES
PRESUMPTION
An assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such
fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or
Established in the case.
A presumption is not evidence. It merely affects the burden of offering
evidence.
EXAMPLE:
D is indebted to C in an amount payable in instalments. If evidence is
introduced that the instalment payment for December has been
received by the creditor, a presumption arises that previous
instalments have been paid. (Art. 1176, CC)
INFERENCE vs. PRESUMPTION
An INFERENCE is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn
from other facts. It is a result of reasoning process. It need not have a
legal effect because it is not mandated by law.
A PRESUMPTION is mandated by law and establishes a legal relation
between or among the facts.
KINDS OF PRESUMPTION
PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW:
Those which the law requires to be drawn from the existence of
established facts in the absence of contrary evidence.
EXAMPLE:
When a crime is charged, the accused is presumed innocent until
proven guilty.
PRESUMPTIONS OF FACT:
Those which the experience of mankind has shown to be valid,
founded on general knowledge and information; inferences which
naturally arise in common experience from particular circumstances or
known fact.
EXAMPLE:
A person in possession of a forged document is presumed to be the
forger.
ADMISSIONS
CONCEPT OF ADMISSION
The acknowledgment of facts or of circumstances from which guilt
may be inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient
to establish his guilt.
ADMISSION is sometimes referred to as the “little brother of
confession.”
EXAMPLE: In a homicide case, the accused invokes self-defense.
PROBLEM:
Pam sues Dawn for damages for injuries as a result of the mauling of
Pam by Dawn. Dawn defends that it is a case of mistaken identity.
Dawn admits that Pam was beaten up, but claims she had nothing to
do with Pam’s injuries.
At trial, Dawn testified in her own behalf that on the date that Pam
suffered her injuries, Dawn was on an extended vacation in New York.
Pam’s attorney did not cross-examine Dawn regarding that testimony.
In rebuttal, Pam’s attorney calls Wally, who is willing to testify that one
week after the mauling of Pam, Dawn said to Wally, ”I haven’t been
out of the country in ten years.”
Is Wally’s testimony admissible?
ANSWER:
Yes. Dawn’s statement is an admission -- an out-of-court statement by
a party (Dawn) being offered into evidence by an opposing party
(Pam). Since the statement is not considered hearsay evidence, and is
obviously relevant to the underlying question of who committed the
assault against Pam, it would be admissible. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)
NOTE:
It is wrong to say that Dawn’s statement is a “declaration against
interest” because Dawn’s out-of-court statement (“I haven’t been out
of the country in five years”) is admissible only if it is against the
declarant’s interest when made. Dawn’s out-of-court statement was
not clearly against her interest; and besides, Dawn is still available to
testify.
PROBLEM:
Susan is on trial for the murder of her husband. She is accused of
pushing him from the window of their high-rise condominium unit.
Susan claims he committed suicide.
Mary, Susan’s friend, is called to testify that Susan had told her that
she pushed her husband from the window. Susan objects to the
question on hearsay grounds.
How should the court rule?
ANSWER:
Objection overruled. Susan’s statement is an admission and not
hearsay.
Admission is an act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant
fact which may be given in evidence against her. It is any statement of
fact made by a party against her interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which she contends or is inconsistent with the facts
alleged by her. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)
KINDS OF ADMISSION
JUDICIAL: one made in a judicial proceeding.
EXTRAJUDICIAL: one made out of court.
EXPRESS: one made in a definite, certain and unequivocal language.
IMPLIED: those which may be inferred from the acts, declarations or
omissions of a party.
ADOPTIVE: It is a 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. A third
person’s statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or
espousing it.
EXPRESS ADMISSION:
1. Accused defends that he killed the victim in self-defense.
2. A man executes an affidavit that a parcel of land belongs to his
wife.
IMPLIED ADMISSION:
1. Payment of interest of a debt is an implied admission of the
existence of the debt.
2. The immediate flight of the accused and his lengthy sojourn in
another province under an assumed name are admissible to show
consciousness of guilt. “The wicked fleeth, even when no man
pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion”
ADMISSION OF A PARTY
ADMISSION is an act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact which may be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 26,
Rule 130)
It 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. (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 754, 2008 ed.)
What are the requisites for an admission to be admissible?
1. must involve matters of fact, not of law.
2. must be categorical and definite.
3. must have been knowingly and voluntarily made.
4. must be adverse to the admitter’s interests.
PROBLEM:
Abe was feeding a beautiful dog when a friend came and asked, “Is
that your dog? Its cute.” Abe answered, “Mine, of course.”
Three months later, a damage suit was filed against Abe because the
dog he was feeding and claimed as his own had bitten a boy. Abe
disowned the dog saying it was his neighbor’s dog.
Can the plaintiff present Abe’s statement, “Mine, of course,” to show
ownership of the dog?
ANSWER:
Yes, Abe’s statement is an admission which is relevant to the fact in
issue: the ownership of the dog. Consequently, the admission is
admissible in evidence against him.
PROBLEM:
Abe had just purchased a new Porsche from a car dealer. As Abe was
carefully driving the car home, within the posted speed limit, Amy,
aged 11, suddenly darted into the street in front of his car. Although
Abe immediately applied his brakes and swerved to avoid Amy, the
car hit the girl fracturing her legs.
As Amy was lying in the street awaiting an ambulance, Abe rushed
over to her and said, "I'm terribly sorry. This is the first time I ever
drove this car. I don't know what happened, but it must have been my
fault. Send me all your hospital bills. I'll pay for everything."
After Amy’s discharge from the hospital, her parents met with Abe to
discuss their daughter’s medical condition. When asked to pay the
hospital bills, Abe refused to pay anything. Abe told Amy's parents,
"Since your daughter ran into the street, it was her fault. I wouldn’t
have hit her if she did not cross the street. I have several witnesses
who saw what she did.”
Is Abe’s statement admissible?
ANSWER:
Abe's statement regarding his operation of the Porsche (“This is the
first time I ever drove this car. I don't know what happened, but it must
have been my fault”) is admissible on the issue of Abe’s negligence.
The statement is an admission of Abe as to a relevant fact which may
be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 26, Rule 120)
But Abe’s statement concerning payment of the hospital bills is not
admissible. An offer of 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. (Sec. 27, Rule 130)
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA literally means “things done between
strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to it.”
It has two branches:
1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another.
2. 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 similar thing
at another time.
What are the exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (first
branch)?
1. Admission by a co-partner or agent.
2. Admission by a co-conspirator.
3. Admission by privies (Sec. 29, 30, 31, Rule 130)
What does the rule prohibit? (second branch)
The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called “propensity evidence”
which is 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 similar
thing at another time.
PROBLEM:
At a road intersection, a delivery truck owned by XYZ Bazaar collided
with a car driven by Rey. At the time of the accident, Abe, the truck
driver, said to Rey, “The accident was my fault. I wasn’t paying any
attention. Don’t worry, my employer will make it right.”
The subsequent investigation of the accident by XYZ Bazaar revealed
that Abe had been drinking on the day of the accident. Abe was fired.
Rey brings appropriate action against XYZ for damages resulting from
the accident. Abe has disappeared. Rey seeks to testify as to what
Abe said at the time of the accident.
Is Rey’s testimony admissible?
ANSWER:
This question raises the issue of whether an employee’s out-of-court
statement (“The accident was my fault. I wasn’t paying any attention.
Don’t worry, my employer will make it right.”) will be attributed to the
employer, and thus considered an admission when the employer is a
party.
The answer is yes, provided the statement was made while the person
was employed by the employer and provided the statement related to
the employment.
Here, Abe’s statement was made while he was employed by XYZ, and
it related to his employment in that it pertained to an accident that
occurred when he was driving XYZ’s truck, presumably in the course
of employment. (Sec. 29, Rule 130)
ADMISSION AND CONFESSION
ADMISSION: A statement of fact which does not involve an
acknowledgment of guilt or liability.
CONFESSION: A statement of fact which involves an
acknowledgment of guilt or liability.
ADMISSION: May be made by third persons and, in certain cases, are
admissible against a party.
CONFESSION: Can be made only by the party himself and, in some
instances, are admissible against his co-accused.
ADMISSION: May be express or implied.
CONFESSION: Always express.
INTRODUCTION OF ADMISSION
1. AS INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE:
Admissions are original evidence and no foundation is necessary for
their introduction in evidence.
IF MADE ORALLY, it may be proved by any competent witness who
heard them or by the declarant himself. It is not necessary the exact
words be repeated.
IF MADE IN A PRIVATE WRITING, there must be some proof of the
authenticity or identity of the writing.
IF MADE IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, no need of identification
because of the rule that public documents are evidence of the fact that
gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
EXAMPLE:
P v. D for sum of money. P’s claim is for 100,000. D disputes the
amount and offers a demand letter sent to him by P stating “Balance
due: 75,000.”The letter may be marked in evidence.
2. AS IMPEACHING EVIDENCE:
A proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching questions, by
calling the attention of such party to his former statement so as to give
hive him an opportunity to explain before such admissions are offered
in evidence.
EXAMPLE:
A witness in a homicide case testified that he saw the accused
wearing a white shirt at the time of the incident. He may be confronted
on cross-examination with his sworn statement where he said he saw
the accused wearing a dark shirt.
ADMISSION OF A PARTY AS TO A RELEVANT FACT
RULE:
The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him. This rule is based upon the
presumption that no man would declare anything against himself,
unless such declaration were true.
EXAMPLE:
H and W are husband and wife. When W died, W’s heirs sought to
partition a parcel of land registered in the name of W. H claims the
land to be conjugal.
The heirs of W may present in evidence an affidavit previously
executed by H attesting that the land is his wife’s paraphernal
property.
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
DOCTRINE OF ACQUIESCENCE
Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the
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,
may be given in evidence against him. SILENCE MEANS CONSENT.
EXAMPLE: He who stands, at the sale of his property by another
person, without objecting will be precluded from contesting the buyer’s
title.
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
IN CRIMINAL CASES accusations or statements in the presence of
the accused are competent only when the accused hears them and
fully comprehends their effect.