JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Judicial Admission
• Oral or written
• Made by the party
• In the course of the proceedings in the same case
• Does not require proof
• It cannot be contradicted (unless previously shown that it was made
through PALPABLE MISTAKE or that NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE)
Judicial Admission
• Oral or written
-form is immaterial except when admission is made during the PRE-TRIAL conference
of the case where it requires to be reduced into writing (PRE-TRIAL ORDER)
-must be written and
-signed by the accused AND counsel, OTHERWISE they cannot be used
against the accused
-judicial admissions may be made in:
-pleadings (complaint, affidavit, counter-affidavit, sworn-
statement/sinumpaang salaysay, motion)
-during TRIAL either verbal or written stipulations, manifestations
-other stages of judicial proceedings
Judicial Admission
-STIPULATION OF FACTS entered into by the prosecution and
the defense DURING TRIAL in open court are admissible as
they are automatically reduced into writing and contained in
the official transcript of proceedings in court
-admissions made in drafts of pleadings not yet filed are
obviously not judicial admissions because they are not parts of
the records of the case
-when pleading is amended, it supersedes the pleading it
amends
Judicial Admission
-the admissions in the superseded pleading are considered
extrajudicial admissions which must be proven before it may
be offered in evidence against the pleader
-admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are
merely extrajudicial admissions
-a motion to discharge an accused as a state witness is denied,
his worn statement submitted in support the motion shall be
INADMISSIBLE in evidence
Judicial Admission
• Made by the party
-party to the case
-excludes admissions of non-party

• In the course of the proceedings in the same case

-made in the course of the proceedings of the same case
-admissions in another proceeding is considered an extra-judicial
admission for purposes of the other proceeding
Judicial Admission
• Does not require proof
-judicial admissions made are CONCLUSIVE and DO NOT REQUIRE
further evidence to prove them
-they are binding on the party who made them
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL
-admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person
making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person
relying thereon
Judicial Admission
• It cannot be contradicted (unless previously shown that it was
made through PALPABLE MISTAKE or that NO SUCH ADMISSION
WAS MADE)
*Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a client and
even the negligence of the counsel binds the client
PALPABLE
-a mistake that is clear to the mind or plain to see
-it is a mistake that is readily perceived by the senses or the mind
-EXCEPT when RECKLESS OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE of counsel
deprives the client of due process of law or when its application
would result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or
property or when the interests of justice so requires
Judicial Admission
• NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE
-when the statement of a party is taken out of context or that
his statement was made not in the sense it is made to appear
by the other party
-here the party upon whom the admission is imputed does not
deny making a statement but what he denies is the meaning
attached to his statement
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• Evidence as a manner of establishing a Fact
A. DIRECT EVIDENCE
-proves a fact without drawing any inference from another fact
e.g.
1. A prosecution witness claiming that he personally saw the accused drew and
fired his pistol at the victim.
2. In a case of arson, the witness testifies that he was only a few feet away behind
the bush when he saw the accused set the nipa hut of the victim on fire.
3. The witness affirms in open court that the bus driver rammed a car on the
opposite lane
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• Evidence as a manner of establishing a Fact
B. INDIRECT/CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE
-the fact is established by making an inference from a previously established fact; it
uses a fact from which an assumption is drawn; it is the exact opposite of direct
evidence
e.g.
1. Fingerprints of the accused is found in the crime scene.
2. Juan saw Pedro running away from the place where the lifeless body of Boy was
found.
3. The witness saw the accused to be the last person whom the victim was in
contact with.
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• Conviction by circumstantial evidence
-a direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt
-the probative value of a direct evidence is generally neither greater
than nor superior to circumstantial evidence
-a number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to establish a
fact from which it may be inferred, beyond reasonable doubt
-the commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator and the
finding of guilt may all be established by circumstantial evidence
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• Conviction by circumstantial evidence
-circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction if:
-there is more than one circumstance;
-the facts from which the inference are derived are proven and-
-the combination of all the circumstances is such to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
-proven circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• Conviction by circumstantial evidence
-circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction if:
-there is more than one circumstance;
-the facts from which the inference are derived are proven and-
-the combination of all the circumstances is such to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
-proven circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• As to nature of additional evidence
A. CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE
-refers to evidence of same kind and character as that already given
which tends to prove the same proposition
e.g.
1. A witness testifies he X attended the birthday party and was drunk
before the stabbing incident. Another witness testifies that he saw X
attending the party drunk.
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• As to nature of additional evidence
A. CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
-is one supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm it; it is additional
evidence of a different character to same point; it confims, validates or strengthen evidence
already presented
e.g.
1. A witness testifies that the knife marked as Exhibit A was the weapon used by the accused in
the stabbing of the victim. Another evidence-the findings of the crime laboratory that the
knife bears only the fingerprints of the accused corroborates the testimony of the witness.
2. The physician testifying based on the medico-legal certificate finding that the victim has
lacerations in her private area corroborates the testimony of the victim that she was raped.
*A corroborative testimony is not always required. A single witness where credible and positive us
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. E.g Child testimony, in Rape
cases
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• As to tenor of proof offered
A. POSITIVE EVIDENCE
-if a witness affirms on the stand that a certain stae of facts does exists
or that certain event happened
e.g. A witness testifies that he saw P fire a gun at the victim.
B. NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
-when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state
of facts alleged to exists does not actually exists
e.g. A witness-accused testifies that he could have not fired a gun
because he was not armed during the incident.
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• As to tenor of proof offered
-presence of a finger print of accused in the area is a positive evidence
of him having been present in the said place. BUT the absence of his
finger print does not necessarily mean that he was not in the area
during the incident.
-a negative finding of paraffin test is not conclusive that one has not
fired, nor the absence of a laceration in the vagina of the victim is not a
negative evidence that accused did not rape her.
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
• DENIAL
-is viewed with disfavor for being inherently weak
-it cannot prevail over the positive ad credible testimony of the
prosecution witnesses
-it is considered with suspicion and received with caution because they
are easily fabricated and concocted
-it can only prosper when substantiated by a clear and convincing
evidence, thus, denial is not a totally impotent defense
MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
• FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS
- “false in one thing, false in everything”
- It is particularly applied to the testimony of a witness who may be
considered unworthy of belief as to all rest of his evidence if he is shown
to have testified falsely in one detail
-not an absolute rule and rarely applied; before it can be applied, the
witness must be shown to have willfully falsified the truth on one or more
material points
E.g The police-witness testified that he saw the accused as one of those
alighted from the jeep that was flagged down and then ran towards the
mountainous area. But the accused was able to prove that he was already
amputated of one leg when the incident allegedly transpired.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
• ALIBI
- Inherently weak and must be rejected when the identity of the
accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by the
eyewitnesses to the offense especially when such eyewitness have no
ill motive to testify falsely
- Positive identification prevails over alibi because the latter can be
easily fabricated and inherently unreliable
-it is form of denial and is self-serving negative evidence which cannot
be given greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible
witness who testifies on affirmative matters
MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
• ALIBI
-BUT, it is not always false if demonstrated that the accused was not
only somewhere else when the offense was committed but was so far
away that it would be physically impossible to be at the place of the
crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
-Also, while it is weak, it may assume strength when the evidence of the
prosecution is also intrinsically weak. The burden of proof remains with
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
-it may be a basis of acquittal
MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
• FRAME-UP
-not favored upon by the court
-in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such serious crime
against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty shall prevail.
• DELAY AND INITIAL RELUCTANCE IN REPORTING A CRIME
-delay in the filing of complainant before the proper authorites would
not impair the credibility of the complainant if such delay is
satisfactorily explained
-delay is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge and does
not automatically cast doubt on the credibility of complainant
MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
• FLIGHT OR NON-FLIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
-flight is a strong indication of guilt
-but flight per se is not synonymous with guilt unless it is unexplained where it is a
circumstance from which inference of guilt may be drawn
-non-flight as a defense is not by itself a valid defense since non-flight does not
signify innocence. It cannot prevail over a positive identification of the witness

• RECANTATION
-E.g Desistance
-it does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration
-a testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and disregarded
lightly; a comparison of the first and subsequent testimony must first be made