EVIDENCE

Assignment – Week 5 & 6

By: STEVEN C. DADULLA

Week 5
Testimonial Privileges (Cont.); Admissions and Compromises

State Secrets; Executive Privilege

a. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) – Generalized claim of executive privilege
cannot stand against specific need of documents to satisfy due process in criminal
administration, absent a claim of need to protect military diplomatic, or sensitive national
security secrets.
b. Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, G.R. No. L-70054, July 8, 1986 - Confidential
communications of public officers are not absolutely confidential, its’ purpose is to protect the
public interest and not the public official. Burden of proof is with the public official to prove
public interest.
c. People v. Ong, G.R. No. 137348, June 21, 2004 – In disclosure of informant’s identity, the
state’s interest in law enforcement and preserving their anonymity versus the accused’ right
to a fair trial must be balanced.
d. Chavez v. PEA, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002. – The right to information on government
contracts and other documents which includes the negotiations leading to the consummation
of the transaction. This also apples even if no contract is consummated.
e. Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006. – The power of the legislature to
conduct inquiry in aid of legislation is broad but the President can invoke that such
information is privileged. This is rooted on the constitutional restriction on separation of
powers.
f. Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 - The claim of executive privilege is
highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a power of the President,
such as the area of military and foreign relations.

Newsman’s Privilege
g. Republic Act No. 53, as amended by Republic Act No. 1477. - A publisher, editor or
reporter cannot be compelled to divulge their sources except if demanded by the courts or
congress in the interest of the security of the state.
h. In Re Myron Farber, 394 A.2d 330. - Requiring reporters to appear and testify before the
courts does not abridge freedom of speech granted by the constitution. The integrity of the
judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts.

Trade Secrets
i. Air Philippines v. Pennswell, G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007. - The inventor,
discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation has rights therein which may
be treated as property.

Admissions
a. Viacrusis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-29831, March 29, 1972. - Testimony and public
documents which are adverse to ones’ interest is admissible in evidence not only against the
party who made it or his successors in interest, but also against third persons.
b. Keller v. COB Group Marketing, G.R. No. L-68097, January 16, 1986. - The admissions of
the president of a company are binding on the company under the rule that admissions of
liability by a party may be given against it.
c. People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, November 7, 1979. - The silence of an accused while
in custody must not be taken against him.
d. People v. Mejia, G.R. No. 118940-41, July 7, 1997. - An offer of compromise by a 3 rd party
in a criminal proceeding, is not an implied admission of guilt if done without the consent or
ratification of the accused.

Compromises
a. El Varadero v. Insular Lumber, G.R. No. 21911, September 15, 1924. – Offers of
compromise in civil cases and not used to prove liability is generally inadmissible, however
amounts offered may be used as basis for fair estimate of value or amount of liability.
b. U.S. v. Torres, G.R. No. 10566, August 20, 1915. – Offer of compromise may be used in
evidence in criminal cases as an implied admission of guilt provided the law expressly allows
such compromise.
c. People v. Godoy, G.R. No. 115908-09, December 6, 1995. - The accused is permitted to
show that the offer was not made under the consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the
inconvenience of imprisonment or some other purpose.
d. People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 117217, December 2, 1996. - A plea for forgiveness may
be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. An offer of compromise by the
accused or ratified the act may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
e. People v. Yparraguirre, G.R. No. 117702, February 10, 1997. - 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.

Week 6
Res Inter Alios Acta, Confessions, Conduct and Character as Evidence Res Inter Alios
Acta (and its exceptions)
a. People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, November 7, 1979. – As a general rule, the
extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not admissible and
does not have probative value against his co-accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as far
as the other accused are concerned.
b. People v. Raquel, G.R. No. L-17401, November 28, 1964. - The rights of an accused
cannot be prejudiced by the extrajudicial declarations of another person.
c. Mahlandt v. Wild Canid, 588 F.2d 626 (8th Circ. 1978). - Statements of an employee of a
corporation, as well as those appearing in the records of a board meeting of the corporation
is admissible against the corporation as well as the employee. Officer act thru their officers,
their statement will therefore bind the corporation.
d. People v. Cabrera, G.R. No. L-37398, June 28, 1974. - Extrajudicial confession of an
accused is not admissible against his co-accused to prove conspiracy between them when
timely objected.
e. People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181, November 28, 1955. – Confessions of an accused may
be used in evidence against him.
f. People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, G.R. No. L-19590, April 25, 1968. - The existence of a
conspiracy must be proved by independent evidence other than the confession.
g. People v. Cadiang, G.R. No. L-7973, April 27, 1959. - The rule that "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," applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration, but not to testimony given on
the stand at the trial, where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the
declarant.
h. Alpuerto v. Pastor, G.R. No. 12794, October 14, 1918. – The word “privies” does not only
denote intestate or testate succession but also donations, as by assignment, subrogation or
purchase and in fact any act whereby the successor is substituted in the place of the
predecessor in interest. The purchaser at an execution sale is a privy of the execution
debtor.
i. City of Manila v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 1284, November 10, 1905. - Where one derives
title to real property from another, the declaration, act or omission of the latter, in relation to
the property, is evidence against the former only when made while the latter holds title.

Confessions
a. People v. Compil, G.R. No. 95028, May 15, 1995. - Admissions obtained during custodial
interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in
the presence of counsel are flawed under the Constitution and as such cannot be admitted
in Court. Even if counsel arrives prior to the actual signing of the statement, his absence
during the making but presence during the signing will not cure the defect.
b. People v. Wong Chuen Ming, G.R. Nos. 112801-11, April 12, 1996. - The “exclusionary
rule” apply to both aliens and citizens.
c. People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959, November 14, 1996. - Any confession,
including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and
without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence.
d. People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, March 22, 1995. - In a confession, there is an
acknowledgment of guilt. On the other hand, the term admission is usually applied in criminal
cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment
of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense charged. The rights of an accused
are available at any stage when a person is under investigation for the commission of an
offense.
e. Parker v. United States, 442 U.S. 62 (1979) - The court may admit into evidence
interlocking confessions of codefenants/accused even without giving the accused an
opportunity to cross-examine his co-defendant. The rule however is different when a co-
defendant does not confess. In such cases, the codefendant must be given an opportunity to
cross-examine the confessant if and when such person takes the witness stand
f. People v. Encipido, G.R. No. 70091, December 29, 1986. - Admissions made by accused
and against their own interest gives them their evidentiary value. They are admissible as
circumstantial evidence against their coaccused implicated therein to show the probability of
the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime.
g. People v. Galgarin, G.R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001. - A videotaped interview
showing the accused unburdening his guilt, willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of
newsmen does not for part of custodial investigation if it was not given to police officers but
media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.
h. People v. Abulencia, G.R. No. 138403, August 22, 2001. - A confession to a radio reporter
is admissible where it was not shown that said reporter was acting for the police or that the
interview was conducted under circumstances where it is apparent that the suspect
confessed to the killing out of fear.
i. People v. Malngan y Mayo, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006. - An uncounseled
confession or admission given by the accused to a private individual, not under custodial
investigation, where there is no showing that said private individual was acting under police
authority is admissible in evidence against him.
j. People v. Lauga y Pina, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010. - An uncounseled extrajudicial
confession taken by a “Bantay Bayan” whose function is related to peacekeeping, is
inadmissible in evidence.
Conduct as Evidence
a. United States v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858, January 22, 1918. - As a general rule, the
evidence of other offenses committed by a defendant is inadmissible, however they may be
used as evidence to prove negligence, intent or frequency of accidents.
b. People v. Irang, G.R. No. 45179, March 30, 1937. Identification of the accused may be
corroborated by the latter's own admission in a separate crime.
c. People v. Babiera, G.R. No. 28871, September 19, 1928. – Moral character of accused
may be proved by offering evidence of his general reputation in the community and not of
isolated and specific acts.
d. U.S. v. Mercado, G.R. No. 8332, November 13, 1913. - The character of the witness has
an intimate relation or may have a strong relation with the facts being investigated because it
tended to impugn the credibility of the witness.