JUDICIAL ADMISSION
making it and may be offered as evidence agnst him
 Made by a party (not made by ordinary witness)
 Verbal/ writing
 In same proceedings : if there is admission in other court of
other case, not admissible in the current case
 Requires no proof/ evidence
 Conclusive upon the party making an admission- doctrine of
estoppel
 You can free from that admission if: palpable mistake, no
such admission was made - statement took out of context
 Admission in the complaint, counterclaim are JA bcus
pleadings are filed in court, hence part of the proceedings
 Court together with the parties made an ocular inspection of
the crime scene, the prosecutor representing ppl of the ph
made an admission is JA - bcus occular inspection is part of
crim proceedings
 Admission in PreTrial conference is JA as long as made by a
part to the case
 Oral admission in court is JA
 Failure to specific denial of a material allegation of a
complaint is implied JA
 Negative pregnant denial is implied JA
 General denial is implied JA - “I deny all the paragraph in the
complaint, specifically’
 Not all allegations of the complaint not specifically denied
are deemed admitted, only those material allegations
 Conclusions are not allegations of fact it is not deemed JA if
not specifically denied- ‘plaintiff is reckless
 Plaintiff failed a foreclosure for real estate mortgage and the
basis is the deed - therefore the basis of action is the deed
which is an actionable document which must be specifically
deny under oath
 Death of a party in foreclosure of mortgage does not
distinguish the case; hence there must be a substitution.
 Pretrial in crim case; accused made orally an admission is JA
but not admissible. To be admissible, must be in writing ,
signed by him and the counsel R118 Sec2
 In original pleading there was admission then u amend it- the
admission in superseded pleading is not anymore JA but
Extrajudicial admission which needs to be offered in
evidence
 Admission (about facts) is different from confession (direct
acknowledgement of guilt)
 Extrajudicial admission is admissible only agnst the party
(videotype evidence was offered in court)
 When someone makes admission of his own will not
prejudice the other : res inter alius acta : ExtraJudicial
admission is admissible only agnst person making it and not
other co-accused (remedy- pa ulit mo sa kanya in an open
court)
 For statement by co-conspirator to be admissible to other
co-conspirator 3 elements must concur:
1. Statement must be made during existence of conspiracy
(pag tapos na ang robbery, wala na conspiracy)
2. Statement must relate to conspiracy
3. Conspiracy must be proven by other independent
evidence aside from the statement made (statement by 3rd
party who knows the conspiracy)
 Offer of compromise (no adverse effect) in civil case is not an
implied admission of liability
 Crim charge: reckless imprudence resulting to less serious
physical injuries- offered a compromise for liability - no
implied admission of liability bcus criminal negligence could
be compromise such as quasidelicts, and culpa
 Dolo’s liability could not be compromise, an offer to
compromise is an admission of liability
 It is the civil aspect that can be compromise, crim case then
can be continued
 Good Samaritan rule is not admission of liability (Pay hospital
bills etc)
 Withdrawal of plea of guilty will not have adverse effect at
you
 Extrajudicial confession in itself is not sufficient for
conviction it must be corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti (That the crime was really committed)
 Corpus delicti does not necessarily mean the ‘actual body
‘bcus the death of the person could be proven even if the
body is not found as long as there s sufficient evidence and
testimony(ppl v larranaga: where double murder was
sustained even if one body was not found)
 In drugs there must be corpus delicti
 In homicide or murder need not be shown in court
 3 Classification of Evidence under ROC
 Object Evidence
- real evidence
- To be admitted must be authenticated and
 - Sponsored by the witness because the object cannot talk
-Object is dependent with testimonial evidence
-Not every object is an object evidence, it can be a
documentary evidence
-Best evidence and Parol evidence does not apply also
Hearsay rule (applies only to docu and testimonial)
 Documentary Evidence
- Needs testimonial evidence
-It can be an object evidence - look at the purpose for which
it is use
-Best Evidence (original document rule) and Parol evidence
applies
 Testimonial Evidence
-This can stand alone even if there is no Object
- Hearsay rule applies
-
 Evidence must be relevant and competent to be admissible
 he rules does not establish the hierarchy of evidence, they
compliment each other
 Object evidence can be at the same time a documentary
evidence (ex. Pen offered as size, diameter, that it exist-
object. IF offered as to writings on the pen -docu)
 A person can be an object and documentary evidence - in a
sense for example for tattoo writings (for identifying that the
accused is the man who committed the crime)
 Observation of witness to a marriage (Object) -best evidence
rule does not apply. No document involved merely
perception
 Existence of marriage contract is an object evidence and best
evidence rule does not apply
 If best evidence rule applies, your duty is to present the
original document
 Lay the basis for presentation of secondary evidence
 If simply said it was loss - secondary evidence will not be
granted (lay the basis why it was loss)
 You cannot present ANY secondary evidence; order
 Copy
 Recital of its contents and authenticated copy
 Testimony of witnesses
 A photocopy of marked 100 peso bill in buy bust operation-
is the photocopy object or docu evidence?- It is an object
evidence bcus the marked bills are not offered to prove the
contents of the bill. (The photocopy is admissible bcus best
evidence rule does not apply to object evidence)
 Parol Evidence
-will included (consider agreement for purposes of PArol
evidence)
- Not applicable to Oral contracts
- Applicable only to documentary
- When the parties have decided to put their agreement in
writing,
- Do not look outside the writing, look only at the very same
writings(evidence aliunde or outside evidence)
-Parol means intrinsic
-If it contradicts the writing, do not consider it (if the writing
says 1million, and the other party said 500- do not consider
it)
 Put in issue in the pleading, hence parol evidence is now
available. If you do not put it in issue objection for parol
evidence will be sustained
 Tingnan mo ang kasulatan- parol
 Original na kasulatan- best evidence rule or lay the basis
 Witnesses
 Testimonial Evidence
 Religious belief has nothing to do with the qualification
of witnesses
 Interest in a case (father- son relationship) has nothing
to do with qualification of witness= credibility tho will
be affected
 Political beliefs has nothing to do with qualifications =
credibility tho will be affected
 Qualifications : Perceive ,can communicate his
perception, Oath/ affirmation (did u see the killing,+do
u remember+ oath)
 Did see the killing+ did not remember- not qualified. If
someone only told you- you are not qualified
 Witness cannot be compelled to answer a question if it
would open him in crim charge - right agnst self
incrimination
 The accused can refuse to testify (right agnst self
incrimination of accused) but an ordinary witness can
be compelled to testify- if refuse, cite in contempt
  Ordinary witness exercising right agnst self
incrimination should wait for the incriminating question

 Leading questions are not allowed in direct exam but it is a

question of choice in a cross exam

 Only court can make a person a hostile witness

 Leading Question- a question that is to suggest an answer to

the witness. Not allowed because it is unfair, it should be he
witness that should tell a fact . OAr assuming something not
yet in evidence

 You can ask leading question in cross examination

 How do you impeach a witness:

 Destroy his credibility

 Offering contradictory evidence

 Evidence of his bad, general reputation as to: honesty

or integrity and truth (character is not reputation. You
cannot impeach a witness on the ground of bad
character) (not quarrelsome, being irritable etc)

 Showing that he made a prior inconsistent statement

 Character evidence is inadmissible

 You cannot be evidence by a particular wrongful acts , there

is only ONE which could be used- if there is already
conviction

 Wait first for your witness to be impeached before you

establish him good in court again

 To be a disqualified witness to be a reason of mental

incapacity must be during the time whe called to witness
stand (eventho mentally incapacitated when he saw the
crime)

 At point of perception if the CHILD is called for witness

(Disqualification of witness) RE: child enjoys the presumption
of being competent, anyone who question his competence
has the burden of proof of proving the incompetence

 Marital Disqualification Rule (H&W)

 A sps is not allowed to testify for or against the other

one without the consent of the other. The privilege is
own the other (YOU MUST OBJECT! IF not, waived) -
CrimCase, in CivilCase allowed

 But if the incident occured before marriage not covered

 Borrowing of money (1million) orally is not covered by

Statute of Frauds bcus it is only for Sale and not of loaned