3.2. Intensidad de la pobreza (I)
3.2.4 Descomposición de la intensidad en las dimensiones que constituyen el Índice de
I. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS A. Admissions against Interest
1. §§ 26 & 32, R130
Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. (22)
ADMISSION: 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. Requisites for admission to be admissible:
1. Involves matters of fact, not of law 2. Categorical and definite
3. Knowingly and voluntarily made
4. Adverse to the admitter’s interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible
Self-serving declaration: one which has been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his interests. It is not admissible in evidence.
Self-serving testimony: the extrajudicial statement of a party which is being urged for admission in court. It does not include his testimony as a witness in court. It has 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.
Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. Also, evidence of attempts to suppress evidence, as by destruction of documentary evidence or eloignment of witnesses, are admissible under the same rationale.
• Eloignment: causing the disappearance or non- availability of witnesses
Admission Confession
A statement of fact which does not involve an acknowledgment of guilt or liability
A statement of fact which involves an acknowledgment of guilt or liability
May be express or tacit Must be express May be made by third
persons and, in certain cases, are admissible against a party
Made only by the party himself and, in some instances, are admissible against his co-accused Admission Declaration against interest Need not be made against
the party’s proprietary or pecuniary interest, although it will greatly enhance its probative weight if it be so made
Made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the party
Made by the party himself and is a primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify
Made by a person who is either deceased or unable to testify
Made any time Made ante lite motam
Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
Requisites to be admissible against a party as an admission by silence:
1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person
2. He must’ve had the opportunity to deny it 3. He must’ve understood the statement
4. He must’ve had an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so if the statement was not true 5. The facts were within his knowledge
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue
The rule on admission by silence applies where a person was surprised in the act (US v. Bay) or even if he is already in the custody of the police (People v. Ancheta)
• Voluntary participation in a reenactment of the crime conducted by the police is considered a tacit admission of complicity. (People v. Tia Fong)
o However, for a reenactment to be given any evidentiary weight, the validity and efficacy of the confession must first be shown. (People v. Navoa) 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’ve immediately reacted by a denial if the statements 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.
The rule does not apply if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation (US v. de la Cruz)
2. §13, R132
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. (16)
Leading question: one w/c suggests to the witness the answer desired.
Misleading question: one w/c assumes facts not in evidence or w/o sufficient basis or w/c assumes testimony or proof w/c has not been given.
A leading question propounded to a witness may, by reacting to an inference in his mind, cause him to testify in accordance w/ the suggestion by the question; his answer
may be ‘an echo of the question’ than a genuine recollection of events. (Escoto v. Pineda)
Leading questions may be permitted in the examination of a witness who is immature; aged & infirm; in bad physical condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feeble- minded; confused & agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the stand; lacking in comprehension of questions or slow to understand; deaf & dumb; or unable to speak or understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith. (People v. Dela Cruz)
Gen rule: a party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is bound by the testimony of said witness. Exceptions:
1. Hostile witness;
2. Where the witness is the adverse party or the representative of a juridical person w/c is the adverse party; and
3. When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is required by law to be presented by the proponent, as in the case of subscribing witnesses to a will. (Fernandez v. Tantoco)
A party can impeach the adverse party’s witness by: 1. Contradictory evidence
2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements 3. Evidence of bad character
4. Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice, or incompetence A party can peach his own witness only by:
1. Evidence contradictory to his testimony 2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements
In the case of hostile witnesses, adverse party witnesses or involuntary witnesses, they can also be impeached by other modes of impeachment, aside from contradictory statements and prior inconsistent statements made by them.
Contradictory evidence: other testimony of the same witness, or other evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of another witness
Prior inconsistent statements: oral or documentary statements made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying.
How to impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statements: by laying the predicate
1. Confront him w/ such statements, w/ the circumstances under w/c they were made;
2. Ask him whether he made such statements; and 3. Give him a chance to explain the inconsistency.
o Unless the witness is given the opportunity to explain the discrepancies, the impeachment is incomplete. (US v. Baluyot) However, such defect in the impeachment of the witness is deemed waived if no objection on that ground is raised when the document involved is offered for admission. (People v. Molo)
It is believed that if the prior inconsistent statement appears in a deposition of the adverse party, and not a mere witness, that adverse party who testifies may be impeached w/o laying the predicate, as such prior statements are in the
nature of admissions of said adverse party. Thus, under R23.4(b), the deposition of an adverse party may be used by any party for any purpose, i.e. as evidence for the latter or to impeach or contradict said party deponent through inconsistent statements therein.
Where a witness’ previous statements are offered as evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach him, the rule on laying a predicate does not apply (Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. v. Hashim) and the same would apply to like statements of a party to the case
Cases:
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO . V . ANTIGUA BOTICA RAMIREZ (1932) Admission made in testimony was adverse to his interest – considered judicial admission
PEOPLE V . PARAGSA (1978) [Sir: BAD DECISION]
The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases.
• Requisites:
a. Must appear that party heard and understood the statement
b. He was at liberty to interpose a denial
c. Statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer
d. The facts were within his knowledge
e. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue ESTRADA V . DESIERTO (2001)
An adoptive admission 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.
• Jones explains that the “basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other person had made.”
•
In the Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him as President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Exec. Sec. Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Petitioner did not object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. Petitioner’s silence on this and other related suggestions can be taken as an admission by him RUFINA PATIS FACTORY V . ALUSITAIN (2004)•
Being an admission against interest, the documents are the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. Rationale for rule – presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration was true• It does not matter that the admission was self-serving when it was made, so long as it is against the party’s present claim.
ESTATE OF JESUS S . YUJUICO V . REPUBLIC (2007)
A hydrographic map is not the best evidence to show the nature and location of the lot subject of a land registration application; it is derived from a hydrographic survey which is
mainly used for navigation purposes. [Ocular inspections trump map]
B. Compromises 1. §1(f), R116 2. §§ 1 & 2, R118
The amendment regarding the inadmissibility of a plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is a consequence of the present provisions in criminal procedure on plea bargaining. [§1(f), R116; §§ 1&2, R118]
3. §27, R130
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
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. CIVIL CASES
As a rule, an offer of compromise in a civil case is not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the offeror, unless such offer is clearly not only to “buy peace” but amounts to an admission of liability, the offered compromise being directed only to the amount to be paid. (El Varadero de Manila vs. Insular Lumber)
CRIMINAL CASES
An offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt, although the accused may be permitted to prove that such offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the risks of criminal action against him.
While rape cases can in effect be compromised by actual marriage of the parties since criminal liability is extinguished, an offer to compromise for a monetary consideration, and not to marry the victim, is an implied admission of guilt. An offer of marriage by the accused, during the investigation of the rape case, is also an admission of guilt. (People v. Valdez)
People v. Manzano: the attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant was considered an implied admission of guilt – ?! Note: attempt to settle made during trial. May fall under §29, R130
Criminal cases involving criminal negligence, or the quasi- offenses contemplated in RPC 365, are allowed to be compromised under the amendment to this section, hence an offer of settlement is not an implied admission of guilt. Good Samaritan doctrine
An 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 therefor.
4. §204, RA 8424, Tax Reform Act of 1997
In prosecutions for violation of the internal revenue laws, such offers of compromise are not 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.
5. §§ 2, 4, 6, & 10, PD No. 1508 Amicable settlement at barangay level
Cases:
VARADERO V . INSULAR LUMBER (1924)