1

ADMISSIONS

ADMISSION

Refers to a voluntary acknowledgement, in express terms or by implication, by a party in

interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound, against his interest, of the
SELF-SERVING DECLARATION – one which has been made extrajudicially by the
existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue. In other words, it is an
party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in evidence because they are inherently
acknowledgement of fact/s opposite to the fact/s raised or positions taken in court.
untrustworthy and would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony.
When is an admission admissible? It must:
General Rule: Self-serving declarations are not admissible.
1. Involve matters of fact, and not of law;
2. Be categorical and definite;
3. Be knowingly and voluntarily made; and Exceptions:
4. Be adverse to the admitter’s interests Otherwise: it would be self-serving and
inadmissible 1. Diaries, if it is against interest, or if it is in the nature of books of accounts.
Letters prepared not in anticipation of litigation are not considered self-serving
Two Types of Admissions: declarations.
2. Part of the res gestae, which covers spontaneous statements and verbal acts.
1. JUDICIAL ADMISSION - one made in a judicial proceeding under consideration. 3. When in the form of complaint and exclamations of pain and suffering.
4. When part of a confession offered by the prosecution. (such as those favorable to
2. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION - one made out of court or in a judicial proceeding the accused, e.g., I shot him because he was going to stab me.)
other than the one under consideration. 5. When the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his testimony
RULE ON ADMISSIONS – that act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant is a recent fabrication.
fact may be given in evidence against him. 6. When offered by the opponent.
7. When offered without objection or there is waiver.

ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST

Reason for exclusion of self-serving declarations

The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in 1. The inherent untrustworthiness of the declarations.
evidence against him. (Rule 130, Sec. 27) 2. Allowance would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony.
3. If testified by one other than the defendant, such declarations would be hearsay.

Example: After a murder, accused goes to his neighbor and tells her, “Nakapatay ako”.
His neighbor can testify on this fact in a murder case against the accused. The admission ADOPTIVE ADMISSION – one where a party by words or conduct, voluntarily adopts
may be given in evidence against the accused. or ratifies another’s statement
The admissions of the president of a company as to its indebtedness are binding on the
company under the rule that admissions of liability by a party may be given against it.
(Keller & Co. v. COB, G.R. No. L-68097, 1986) DECLARATION ADMISSIONS
4blue95 Reason Based on presumption that no man would declare anything against AGAINST
himself unless such declarations were true.
INTEREST
The general rule is evidence as to extra-judicial acts, omissions, and declarations Exception to the hearsay rule and Covered by the hearsay rule
(AODs) of a party is admissible. These evidences can either be favorable or admissible
unfavorable to a party. Rule 130, §26 expressly allows evidence of AODs prejudicial
to the AODer. However, an objection may be raised as to the admissibility of AODs Secondary evidence and admissible only if Primary evidence and admissible even if
favorable to the AODer on the grounds of that these are self-serving AODs. the declarant is already dead or the declarant is available as a witness.
unavailable to testify
Self-serving statements = hearsay? Declaration against interest is an exception to
the hearsay rule only applies if the declarant is deceased or unable to testify. Self- Must have been made ante litem motam, May be made at any time, before/during
defeating statements can not be excluded by the hearsay rule because it is expressly i.e., before the controversy the trial.
admissible by the rules.
The fact asserted in the declaration must Need not be considered by the declarant
2023 notes: admission of the accused to his classmate that he was one of the have been at the time it was made so far as opposed to his interest at the time when
victim’s killer is not hearsay. The testimony of his classmate was offered to prove contrary to the declarant’s own interest made, it is enough, if it is inconsistent
the extra-judicial admission of his involvement in the crime. Such admission is an with his present claim and defenses.
admission against personal interest and is competent evidence (Pp v Simangan)
It is not necessary that the declarant be a It is competent only when the declarant or
Examples of Acts,declarations, or omissions of a party which may be given in party to the action, it is admissible to an someone identified in interest is a party to
evidence against him: action where his declaration is relevant the action.
1.flight, which is inconsistent with innocence of the accused
May be admitted against himself or Used only against the party admitting.
Flight of the accused after the commission of the offense is evidence of guilt. successor in interest and against third
Reason: The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold person.
as a lion.

2.failure to deny charges despite the fact that he was confronted twice, then he went
to his friend’s house, the same is admissible against him (pp v Masongsong)

In an administrative complaint against a lawyer for his negligence in the

performance of duties as counsel. Respondent’s failure to file an answer o the
complaint despite notice from the IBP amounts to an admission of the allegations
therein . (Pilapil vs. Carillo, AC No. 5843, Jan, 14, 2003)

3.fact that the driver stated before the police that he ran over an old woman.The
extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence against him (Pp v Estrella)

4.spontaneous statements made not elicited through investigation or questioning but

given in ordinary manner where accused orally admitted that he killed the victims

Two (2) Ways to Introduce an Admission as Evidence:

1. As INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE
2. As IMPEACHING EVIDENCE

OFFER OF COMPROMISE
a.In CIVIL CASES, offer of compromise is not admissible only as evidence of
liability. If the offer of compromise is offered as evidence on other matters (e.g.
amount of liability), then the evidence is admissible.
an offer is clearly not only to buy peace but amounts to an admission of liability the
offered compromises being directed only to the amount paid. (El Varadero de manila vs.
Insular Lumber).
REASON: it is the policy of the law to favor the settlement of disputes, to foster
compromises and to promote peace.
Rule on Compromise Negotiations:
Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations
admissible
Exception:
1. Evidence otherwise discoverable;
2. 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. (Rule 130, sec. 28)
b.In CRIMINAL CASES, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Plea of guilty later withdrawn;
2. Tax cases – payment of any internal revenue tax may be compromised, and all
criminal violations may likewise be compromised (Sec. 204, NIRC) EXC: Those
already filed in court & those involving fraud
3. Offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital, or other expenses occasioned
by an injury
4. Those involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence;
5. An unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser offense;
6. Those covered by Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
7. B.P. 22 cases
8. 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
The following are NOT admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or
offer:
1. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or
2. An unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense
3. 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
An offer of compromise that may be considered an implied admission need NOT be
made by the accused himself, it may be made by his lawyer or relatives, provided it is
made with the consent of the accused or with his knowledge and he does not stop it.
2008 BAR: Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol’s father, Ramil ,approached
Artemon ,the victim’s father during the preliminary investigation and offered P1 M
to Artemon to settle the case. Latter refused.
a) During trial ,the prosecution presented Artemon to testify on Ramil’s offer
and thereby establish an implied admission of guilt. Is Ramil’s offer
admissible in evidence?
GENERAL RULE: NO IMPLIED ADMISSION of guilt can be drawn
from efforts to settle a criminal case out of court where the accused had no
participation in such negotation (Pp v Godoy 250 S 676)
EXCEPTION: Offer to settle made by RELATIVES of the accused is
admissible as an implied admission of guilt (Pp v Salvador 396 S 298)
b) During pre-trial, Bembol personally offered to settle the case for P1M to
the private prosecutor,who immediately put the offer on record in the
presence of the trial judge. Is Bembol’s offer admissible?
NO. the offer is not a judicial admission of guilt because it has not been
reduced in writing or signed by the accused.
4blue95:The rule on Pre-Trial requires that all agreements or admissions
made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing
and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise,they cannot be used
against the accused.
4blue95: the act of wife of ransacking husbands drawer and obtaining documents to
show that husband has a mistress is a violation of privacy of communication and
correspondence as such the evidence obtained is inadmissible against the husband in
a case filed by the wife ( Zulueta v CA Feb 20,1996)
2
2008 BAR: A mutilated body of a woman was discovered near a creek. Due to
witnesses attesting that he was the last person seen with the woman when she was
still alive, Carlito was arrested within 5 hours after the discovery of the cadaver and
brought to the police station. The crime laboratory determined that the woman had
been raped.
While in police custody, Carlito broke down in the presence of an assisting counsel
and orally confessed to the investigator that he had raped and killed the woman,
detailing the acts he had performed up to his dumping of the body near the creek.
During the trial, the state presented the investigator to testify on the oral confession
of Carlito. Is the oral confession admissible as evidence of guilt?
NO. its because Carlito was already under arrest and in police custody when he made the
extrajudicial confession and the mandates of RA 7438 had not been complied with, and
that he was not informed of his Miranda Right particularly the right to remain silent.
Additionaly, it does not appear that the counsel present is his counsel of choice.
2008 BAR: After Alma had started serving her sentence for violation of BP 22,she
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ,citing Vaca v CA whre the sentence of
imprisonment of a party found guilty of violation of BP 22 was reduced to afine
equal to double the amount of the check involved.She prayed that her sentence be
similarly modified and that she be immediately release form detention.
In the alternative, she prayed that pending determination on whether the Vaca
ruling applies to her, she be allowed to post bail pursuant to Rule 102.
Accordingly ,the trial court allowed Alma to post bail and then ordered her release.
Is the order correct?
UNDER Rule 102? NO. Rule 102:Habeas Corpus does not authorize the court to
discharge by writ of habeas corpus a person charged with or convicted of an offense or of
a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
UNDER RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE? NO. the trial court’s order releasing
Alma on bail even after judgment against her has become final and in fact she has started
serving sentence, is a brazen disregard of the mandate that : IN NO CASE SHALL BAIL
BE ALLOWED AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS COMMENCED TO SERVE
SENTENCE
BAR: Onyok was charge with frustrated homicide. He pleaded not guilty. Victim
died later,hence, he was charged again this time with homicide. He pleaded move for
a motion to quash on ground of double jeopardy. Is his contention correct?
NO. the second offense was not yet existing at the time of the first prosecution. There
was no a possibility to convict him of a crime because it merely suprevened after his
indictment for the offense of frustrated homicide.
BAR: Is the medical certificate of a doctor who was not presented as witness
admissible and with probative value? Can medical certificate be considered entries
in official records? NO. Medical certifcate of a doctor who is not presented as witness is
inadmissible as evidence for being hearsay and not be entitled to a probative value
THE GOOD SAMARITAN RULE
An offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital and other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil and criminal liability for the injury.
REASON: To encourage the giving of charitable and meritorious aid to the victims of
accidental harm plus a concern that such payment may have been prompted solely by
humanitarian motives.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE VS. ORDINARY ADMISSION
In an offer of compromise, the proposal is tentative and any statement made in
connection with it is hypothetical – to buy peace and in contemplation of mutual
concessions, whereas in an ORDINARY ADMISSION, the intention is apparently
to admit liability and to seek to buy or secure relief against a liability recognized as
such.
Although a judicial or an extra-judicial amicable settlement does not bear the
court’s approval…. the agreement can become the source of rights an obligations of
the parties (Iloilo Traders Finance Inc. vs. Heirs of Soriano, GR No. 149683, June
16, 2003)
A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. In
criminal cases, except those involving quasioffenses 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. (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 117217, 1996)
An offer of 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. (People v. Yparraguirre, G.R. No. 117702, 1997)

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA BAR TOPIC!!
This rule refers to the maxim, “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet,” which means,
“A thing done among some persons ought not to do harm to another.” (Regalado, 2008
ed.)
Reason for Res Inter Alios Acta rule
The reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience,
a man’s own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. It would
not only be inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by
the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and that 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. (People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119005, 1996)
Rule on Admissions by a third party (Res Inter Alios Acta)
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided. (Rule 130, Sec. 29)
Example: After a murder, Accused goes to his neighbor and tells her, “Napatay namin ni
Jose si Juan”. His neighbor can testify on this fact in a murder case against Accused; the
declaration may be given in evidence as an admission only against Accused. It is not
admissible against Jose.
HOWEVER: If the Accused testifies and explains the participation of Jose, then the
testimony is admissible against Jose.
TWO BRANCHES OF THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
1. THE RIGHTS OF A PARTY CANNOT BE PREJUDICED BY AN ACT,
DECLARATION, OR OMISSION OF ANOTHER (RULE 130, SEC. 29)
EXCEPTIONS TO PART ONE: (Vicarous Admissions)
A. Admissions by Co-Partner or Agent (Sec. 29)
Requisites:
1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party must be within the
scope of his authority.
2. During the existence of the partnership or agency; and
3. After the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act
or declaration.
The same rule applied to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29).
The admissions of one partner are received against another, not on the ground that they
are parties o the record, but on the ground that they are identified in interest, and that
each is agent for the other, and that the acts and declarations of one during the existence
of the partnership, while transacting its business and within the scope of the business, are
evidence against the other/s.
B. Admission by Privies (Sec. 31)
Privies :Denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship or testamentary
legacy but also succession by virtue of acts inter vivos as by assignment, subrogation or
purchase – 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. (Alpuerto v. Pastor, G.R. No. L12794, 1918)
General Rule: In order for an admission of a former owner of property to be admissible
against his successor in title, it must have been made at the time when the title was still
held by the declarant. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)
Exception: The declaration made subsequent to the transfer of the property shall be
admissible:
1. Where the declaration was made in the presence of the transferee and he
acquiesces in the statements or asserts no rights where he ought to speak. (Rule
130, Sec. 33)
2. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud which
conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee. (Rule 130, Sec. 31)
The act of a predecessor is not binding on the successor if the acts/declarations made by
the predecessor acknowledging ownership or offering to purchase the property from a
third party were made before the predecessor held title to the land. (City of Manila v. Del
Rosario, G.R. No. 1284, 1905)
C. Additional exemption
Statements made by an employee against his employer are admissible against the latter,
where the statements while in employ and where they concerned a matter within the
scope of his employment. (Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, 588
F.2d 626, 8th Cir. 1978)
3
D. Admission by Silence (Sec. 32)
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 or her. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)
Reason Based on common experience and natural human behavior.
Applicability to Criminal Cases
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. (People v. Paragsa,
G.R. No. L-44060, 1978)
But Before the Silence of a Party can be Taken as an Admission of What is Said, it Must
Appear that:
1. He heard and understood the statement;
2. He was at liberty to interpose a denial;
3. The statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was
then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer;
4. The facts were within his knowledge; and
5. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to
the issue. (People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L44060, 1978)
Silence of an Accused Under Custodial Investigation
The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another
implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is not asked to comment or
reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of
his participation in the commission of the crime. (People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423,
1979)
E. Admission by Conspirator (Sec. 30):
It refers to an extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator, and not to his testimony given on
the stand which is subject to cross-examination.
Requisites:
1. That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;
2. That the admission relates to the conspiracy itself;
3. That it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy; and
4. That the object of the conspiracy has not yet been consummated.
4blue95: the following requisites do not apply in court.
2023 update: admissions made in jail after arrest cannot be used against a conspirator
because that is no longer admissible since during not at time of conspiracy (so if
admitted also in police precint,its not applicable also if admitted in court)
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. (People v. Alegre,
G.R. No. L-30423, 1979)
The rights of an accused cannot be prejudiced by the extra-judicial declarations of
another person. (People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119006, 1996)
In the example above (PREVIOUS COLUMN 1ST BOX), the utterance of the Accused
that “Napatay namin ni Jose si Juan” was made after the conspiracy. Hence, the out of
court statement to the neighbor is not binding on Jose. However, as stated, if the Accused
testifies and points to Jose as responsible for the death of Juan, his testimony would be
admissible against Jose.
Reason Identity of interests for the commission of a crime.
Scope This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or declaration but NOT to testimony at
the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to crossexamine the declarant. (People
v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, 2011) If the declaration is made after the act designed is
fully accomplished and after the object of the conspiracy has been either attained or
finally defeated, the declaration will be admissible only against the person who made it.
(People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181, 1955)
DOCTRINE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
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. (Estrada vs. Desierto 356 SCRA 108) In this case, Estrada’s
admission was based on the diary of Angara.
Instances where there is no implied admission
1. allegations of unliquidated damages;
2. allegations which are not material to the cause of action;
3. conclusions of fact/law;
4. in cases of usury;
5. if defendant has not filed his answer and is declared in default.

CONFESSION
A categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without
any exculpatory statement or explanation. (Regalado 2008 ed.)
A confession is an acknowledgement in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of
his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or
implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other
facts, to prove his guilt. (People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, 1995)
GENRULE: JUDICIAL or EXTRA-JUDICIAL Confession are INADMISSIBLE
But if its against 3rd person, extra-judicial is inadmissible however if such exta-
judicial statement is repeated inside the courtroom and on the witness stand, then, it
becomes judicial so its admissible.
ADMISSION vis-à-vis CONFESSION – Every confession is an admission, but not all
admissions are confessions.
If the accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justification
therefore, the same is merely an admission.
There can also be a confession of judgment in a civil case where the party expressly
admits his liability.
4blue95: admission on affidavit even if for different purpose may be used against the
person admitting.
4blue95: an offer to marry is an admissible evidence ,its an admission of guilt
JURISPRUDENCE:
Admissions made before the Mayor & Station Commander during a conference that
defendants were responsible for killing the victims is an admission. Also a judicial
admission by one accused is admissible against his co-accused, unlike in an extrajudicial
confession, where its admissible only against the one making it. (People v. Encipido,
G.R. No. 70091, 1986)
A videotaped interview showing the accused unburdening his guilt, willingly, openly and
publicly in the presence of newsmen does not form 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. However, it is prudent that the trial courts are reminded that
extreme caution must be taken in further admitting confessions of such nature. (People v.
Endino, G.R. No. 133026, 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. (People v. Coyos, G.R.
No. 138403, 2001)
An uncounseled confession or admission given by the accused to a private individual is
not covered by Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution where there is no showing that said
private individual was acting under police authority. (People v. Mayo, G.R. No. 170470,
2006)
An uncounseled extrajudicial confession taken by a “bantay bayan,” who is charged with
the state related function of peace-keeping, is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Lauga,
G.R. No. 186228, 2010)
ADMISSION CONFESSION
Statement of facts which does not involve Categorical Statement of facts which
an acknowledgment of guilt involves an acknowledgement of guil
without any exculpatory statement or
explanation
May be made by third persons Can be made only by the party himself
Express or implied Always Express
4blue95: IF statement is “I killed X” then
such is an admission, not a confession coz
for all you know its for self defense.
4
2 KINDS OF CONFESSION:
JUDICIAL CONFESSION – is one made by the accused before a court in which the
case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can
sustain a conviction.
EXCEPT in capital offenses, evidence must be presented in capital offenses and the court
must be satisfied that the pleas of guilty was entered with full knowledge of the meaning
and consequences of his act. (Rule 116. Sec. 3)
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION – is one made in any other place or occasion
and cannot sustain a conviction UNLESS its voluntariness is proven and UNLESS
corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti.
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE
1. The confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of
guilt.
2. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense.
3. The confession must have been given voluntarily.
4. The confession must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the
importance or legal significance of his act.
5. There must have been no violation of Section 12, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution.
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing, and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priests or minister of the gospel as chose by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (Bar 2006;
2008)
A confession made before the confessant is placed under custodial investigation need not
comply with the above. (Riano, 2016 ed.)
The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another
implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment
nor reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession
of his participation in the commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence
drawn from his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear incompatible with
the right of an accused against self-incrimination. xxx While an accused is in custody, his
silence may not be taken in evidence against him as he has a right to remain silent. His
silence when in custody may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of
silence would be illusory. (People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, 1979)
GENERAL RULE: an EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION is admissible against the
confessor only. It is incompetent evidence against his co-accused for being hearsay and
because of the res inter alios acta rule.
EXCEPTIONS: When admissible against the co-defendants:
1. if the co-defendants impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession;
2. Interlocking Confession – If the accused persons voluntarily and
independently executed identical confession without collusion, and
corroborated by other evidence;
3. where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being
apprised of such confession;
4. if they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by
one of the accused and said confession is used only as corroborating
evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co-conspirator;
6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extra-judicial confession is corroborated by
other evidence of record.
In line with the 1987 Constitution, illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible
against the confessant or the admitter BUT are admissible against the persons who
violated the constitutional prohibition in obtaining such illegal confessions or admissions.
(Fruit of the poisonous free)
Custodial Investigation
A questioning initiated by the law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.It is present
where the investigation ceased to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins
to focus on a particular suspect who is taken into custody and asked questions that leads
into eliciting incriminating statements.
2023 NOTE: The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply during in-
custody investigation.
 5

2. SIMILAR ACTS RULE: EVIDENCE OF ONE’S PREVIOUS CONDUCT OR
SIMILAR ACTS AT ONE TIME IS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE THAT HE
DID OR DID NOT DO THE SAME OR A SIMILAR ACT AT ANOTHER TIME
(RULE 130, SEC. 35) THIS RULE ONLY APPLIES TO EXTRAJUDICIAL
DECLARATIONS (PEOPLE V. RAQUEL, G.R. NO. 119006, 2006)
SIMILAR ACTS RULE IN SPECIAL LAWS
1. Rape Shield (SEC. 6, R.A. No. 8505): In prosecutions for rape, evidence of the
complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof, or of his/her reputation shall
not be admitted:

Exception: Unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is
relevant and material to the case.
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE

GENERAL RULE: 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 2. Rule on Examination of Child Witnesses (Sec. 30) The following evidence is
thing at anther time.
not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual child abuse:
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
It may be received to prove: behavior; and

1. specific intent or knowledge; b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim
2. identity;
3. plan; Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged
4. system; victim to prove that a person, other than the accused, was the source of the
5. scheme; semen, injury, or other physical evidence. (This is admissible.)
6. habit;
7. custom or usage; and
8. others of the like.

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.
US v. Evangelista, 24 Phil 453 (1913) In a trial for arson, the prosecution may
prove that the accused had attempted to set fire to the house on the day previous to
the burning alleged in the information, for the purpose of showing the intent of the
accused in subsequently setting fire to the house. Where a person is charged wit the
commission of a specific crime, testimony may be received of the other similar acts
committed about the same time, only for the purpose of establishing the criminal
intent of the accused.
US v. Pineda, 37 Phil 457 (1918)
Facts: A druggist filled a prescription for protassium chlorate with barium chlorate,
a poison, causing the death of two horses. After analyzing the packages, two
chemists went to the drug store of the defendant and bought potassium chlorate,
which when analyzed was found to be barium chlorate.Held: The testimony of the
chemist was admissible in order to demonstrate defendant's motive and negligence.
It is permissible to ascertain defendant's knowledge and intent and to fix his
negligence. If the defendant has on more than one occasion performed similar acts,
accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is intensified, and fraudulent
intent may even be established. There is no better evidence of negligence than the
frequency of accidents. Evidence is admissible in a criminal action which tends to
show motive, although it tends to prove the commission of another offense by the
defendant.
4blue 95: Qui tacet consentire videtur: He who is silent appears to consent.
4blue 95:in line with the constitution ,illegal confessions and admissions are
inadmissible against the confessant or the admitter but are admissible against the
persons who violated the constitutional prohibition in obtaining such illegal
confession (fruit of the poisonous tree)
Q: A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following
pieces of evidence:
a. An offer of A to marry X; and A: A’s offer to marry X is admissible in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt. It has been held that in rape cases, an offer of
marriage is considered an implied admission of guilt of the accused. (People v
Domingo, G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993)
b. A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime which the court, over the
objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well. (1998 Bar)
A: The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is circumstantial evidence of
his guilt, although standing alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused
cannot object to the court requiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part of
his right against self-incrimination because it is a mere physical act.
Q: A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital and offered to
pay for his hospitalization expenses. After the filing of the criminal case against A
for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, A’s insurance carrier
offered to pay for the injuries and damages suffered by B. the offer was rejected
because B considered the amount offered was inadequate.
a. Is the offer by A to pay hospitalization expenses of B admissible in evidence?
A: The offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B is not admissible in
evidence to prove his guilt in both civil and criminal cases. (Sec. 27, Rule 130,
now Sec. 28, Rule 130)
b. Is the offer by A’s insurance carrier to pay for injuries and damages of B
admissible in evidence? (1997 Bar)

People v. Paragsa, 84 SCRA 105 (1978) Failure by a supposed rape victim to rebut
sweetheart defense based on testimonial evidence may be taken against her.
Requirements for admission by silence: 1) heard and understood, 2) at liberty to
deny, 3) affects his rights, 4) within his knowledge, and 5) material to the issue
People v. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979) – silence of accused in custody during
investigation can not be used as evidence against him
A: No. It is irrelevant. The obligation of the insurance company is based on the
contract of insurance and is not admissible in evidence against the accused
because it was not offered by the accused but by the insurance company which is
not his agent.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 853 (1965) – court may not comment on accused’s
failure to testify regarding facts within his knowledge

2023 update: THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA EXEMPTIONS are only
applicable to out of court admissions (so if in court, then it will not apply)

GENERAL RULE:ALL THESE MATTER DISCUSS HERE ARE

INADMISSIBLE ( E.G: ADMISSION OF 3RD PERSON, CONFESSION, & OFFER
OF COMPROMISE) ,BUT THESE GENERAL RULE ARE SUBJECT TO
EXEMPTIONS MENTIONED IN THIS TOPIC

4blue 95: While evidence of another crime is generally not admissible in another
prosecution, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to
identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show
his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged or when
it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. (People v. Irang, G.R.
No. L-45179, 1937)