POLONIA

SECTION 34. 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 did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

There are 2 positive situations here:

(1) the positive situation: evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time

(2) the negative situation: situation that one did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did not do a similar thing at another time.

This Section is also known as Res Inter Alios Acta, Part 2. Part 1 is Section 28. So, there are two parts to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule:

 Part 1: the rights of parties cannot be prejudice by an act, declaration or omission of another (Section 28, Rule 130)

 Part 2: This Section.

EXAMPLE: X is accused for the death of Y, but there is no eyewitness.

So, the prosecution has to build its case based on circumstantial evidence -- proof of collateral matters which will point to the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. So, Y was killed in June. Prosecution tries to prove that six months ago, and every month thereafter until May, X has been attempting against the life of Y. Then suddenly, in June, Y was found dead. If the prosecution says that its purpose in presenting such evidence is to prove that X killed Y, this is inadmissible because this is Res

Inter Alios Acta. Evidence that one did something before is not evidence that he did the same thing now. Evidence that X tried to kill Y in the past does not necessarily mean that X is the killer today.

But such evidence may be received to prove only that out of the 60 million Filipinos, X has the intent and the plan to kill the victim. With this purpose, the court will admit the evidence because the second part of Section 34 states that x x x it may be received to prove the specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage, and the like. The judge may say that this is not the issue, but at least it proves the probability that X is the killer. This is an evidence of collateral manner -- an antecedent collateral matter, circumstantial evidence. So, while the evidence does not prove the guilt of X, it points to the issue that he is the probable killer.

Another example: In a case for damages arising from reckless imprudence, both the plaintiff and defendant claimed that they were careful, but there were no witnesses. What the counsel for the plaintiff did was to dug into police reports and discovered that in the past year, the defendant was booked three or four times for reckless driving. Although this is inadmissible in evidence, if it is used to prove the guilt of the defendant;

the counsel convinced the judge to admit the evidence to prove only that the defendant has the HABIT of being a reckless driver. What he was trying to say to the court was that in all probability, the defendant must have been reckless, and not that he was actually reckless.

The same rule holds true when trying to establish a pattern of conduct to prove that the defendant did not pay to the creditor his debt, by presenting evidence of the debtor’s other unpaid obligations to other creditors.

SECTION 35. Unaccepted offer.  An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument or property.

A good example of this is in the case of redemption or repurchase.

Redemption of property sold under the Public Land Act. Recall that when one holds an original patent, he has the right of redemption within five years from the time of the sale. He has the right of repurchase when the property is a homestead. If the original owner does not offer to repurchase the same within 5 years, his right to redeem or repurchase is lost.

ILLUSTRATION: A writes within the redemption period. He formally offers to buy back or redeem the property within the 5-year period. Then the offer was rejected. It was refused without valid cause. The original owner then files a case to compel reconveyance. The other party claims that there is no valid tended of payment within the 5-year period because he just wrote a letter.

Q: What constitutes a valid tender of payment?

A: A valid tender of payment must be accompanied by delivery of money.

Under the law, if the offer of payment is in writing and is refused without valid cause, the law presumes that at the time of the giving of the letter, there was already a tender of payment. This is because “tender” means offer of money. But if it was rejected, and if the supporting letter was given within one year, but the case is filed beyond one year, one cannot claim that there was a valid tender of payment.

It is a different case when one writes a letter: “I am offering to buy back the property within 5 years.” The other party accepts and asks for the money (payment). The repurchaser asks for a month to produce the amount. In this case, tender will be computed not from the time the letter containing the offer was given, but from the time the money is finally received by the other party. Because tender must be accompanied with money. However, if a party makes the tender, and the other party refuses it without a valid cause, the offer is considered to be payment.

Q: In what form must tender of payment be made?

A: Generally, when one says “tender”, it must be cash.

Q: Is payment made through a manager’s check considered legal tender?

A: No, payment through a manager’s check is not legal tender. The same goes with post-dated checks. Payment in check is not deemed as payment until it is encashed.

So, when a check is given as payment, one must compute tender not from the time it is given, but from the time it is converted to cash. So, effective payment is from the date the check is encashed and not from the date of the giving of the check.

Q: How about a personal check?

A: No, with more reason. A personal check is not even considered as legal tender.

Q: Suppose X is tendering to Y an amount worth P1 million. He asks Y if he prefers to be paid in cash or in manager’s check. Y answers that he prefers to be paid in manager’s check. Is this still legal tender?

A: Yes. Y is now in estoppel. He cannot say that there was no valid tender of payment because it was not given in cash. He was given the option to choose. But definitely, the rule is that payment made in check is not a valid tender because a check is not valid until it is encashed. One may validly refuse to receive a check because it is not a valid tender.

Q: Is partial payment a valid tender?

A: No, partial payment is not a valid tender. One may refuse to accept it.

There is a valid cause for the refusal because payment must be complete.