New Trial

What is the purpose of a new trial?

It is to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice.

When can you file a motion for new trial?

At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final. (Rule 121, Sec. 1)

● A motion for new trial should be filed with the trial court within 15 days from the promulgation of judgment.

If you file a motion for new trial and it is denied, how many days you have to file an appeal?

Within the reglementary period. In civil cases. Rule 40 and 41 apply. (Neypes case)

Who may file a motion for a new trial?

A new trial can be granted only:

1. on motion of the accused

2. on motion of the court but with the consent of the accused

Can the prosecution file a motion for new trial?

No. The rule does not provide for a motion for new trial by the prosecution as the reopening of the case and introduction of additional evidence by the prosecution, without the consent of the accused, would result in double jeopardy. Even such an action motu proprio by the court requires the consent of the accused, for the same reason. (Regalado)

What are the grounds for new trial?

The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:

(a)  That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the trial; 

(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which   the   accused could not with reasonable   diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment. (Rule 121, Sec. 3)

What are the requisites for granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence?

1. The evidence must have been discovered after trial;

2. Such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;

3. The evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching;

4.  The evidence must go to the merits, such that it would produce a different result if admitted.

Consequently, a new trial is justifiably denied:

1. If only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon the issue of credibility at the trial.

2. If only corroborative evidence is offered, as it would not change the result of the case

3. Where a prisoner admits the commission of the crime with which the accused is charged, due to the facility with which such confession can be obtained and fabricated.

4. Where the alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted.

5. Where the alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witnesses, due to the unrealiability of such retractions.

What is a recantation?  Is it a ground for a new trial?

It is when a prior statement is withdrawn formally and publicly by a witness.

It is not a ground for granting a new trial because it makes a mockery of the court and would place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.  Moreover, retractions are easy to extort out of witnesses.  In contrast, their previous statements are made under oath, in the presence of the judge, and with the opportunity to cross-examine.  Therefore, the original testimony should be given more credence.

However, the exception to this rule is when aside from the testimony of the retracting witness, there is no other evidence to support the conviction of the accused.  In this case, the retraction by the sole witness creates a doubt in the mind of the judge as to the guilt of the accused.  A new trial may be granted.

But if there is other evidence independent of the retracted testimony, there can be no new trial.

Distinguish between a recantation and an affidavit or desistance.

● In a recantation, a witness who previously gave a testimony subsequently declares that his statements were not true.

● In an affidavit of desistance, the complainant states that he did not really intend to institute the case and that he is no longer interested in testifying or prosecuting.  It is a ground for dismissing the case only if the prosecution can no longer prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt without the testimony of the offended party.

Can the accused move for a new trial if he has found evidence that would impeach the testimony given by a prosecution witness?

No.  Evidence which merely seeks to impeach the evidence upon which the conviction was based will not constitute grounds for new trial.  It has to be material evidence.

When is evidence considered to be material?

It is material if there is reasonable likelihood that the testimony or evidence could have produced a different result (the accused would have been acquitted).

Are the mistakes of counsel in conducting the case valid grounds for a motion for a new trial?

No.  The mistakes of counsel generally bind the client, unless he misrepresented himself as a lawyer when he was in fact a plumber (or some other occupation).  A new trial may also be granted where the incompetency of the counsel is so great that the defendant is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his defense and where the error of counsel is serious.

What is the form required for a motion for new trial?

The motion for new trial should:

1. be in writing; and shall

2. state the grounds on which it is based. (Rule 121, Sec. 5)

3. if based on newly discovered evidence, the motion must be supported  by affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or authenticated copies of documents to be introduced in evidence.

Notice of the motion for new trial should be given to the prosecutor.

What is the effect of filing a motion for new trial?

● It interrupts the period for perfecting an appeal. The period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run. (Rule 122, Sec. 6)

What is the effect of granting a new trial or reconsideration?

(a)  When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial, all the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside and taken anew. The court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence.

(b)  When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced shall be taken and considered together with the evidence already in the record.

(c)  In   all   cases,   when   the   court   grants   new   trial   or reconsideration, the original judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.  (Rule 121, Sec. 6)

● Where a new judgment of conviction is rendered after said new trial, the period to appeal commences from the promulgation of the new judgment.

Distinguish between new trial and reconsideration.

In a new trial, the case is opened again, after judgment, for the reception of new evidence and further proceedings.  It is only proper after rendition or promulgation of judgment.

In a reconsideration, the case is not reopened for further proceeding.  The court is merely asked to reconsider its findings of law in order to make them conformable to the law applicable to the case.

Distinguish between new trial and reopening of a case.

1. When to file. A reopening is made by the court before judgment is rendered, in the exercise of sound discretion and does not require the consent of the accused. A motion for new trial is filed after judgment is rendered but before finality thereof.

2. Who can file. Reopening of the case may be at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence. A motion for new trial is at the instance or with the consent of the accused.

Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration in Criminal Cases vs. in Civil Cases

MNT or MR in Criminal Cases	MNT or MR in Civil Cases
Either on motion of 1. accused, or 2. the court motu proprio with consent of the accused	Must be upon motion of a party, can’t be motu proprio
Grounds for MNT –  1. errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial, or  2. newly discovered evidence	Grounds for MNT – 1. FAME, or 2. newly discovered evidence
Ground for MR – error of law or fact	Grounds for MR – 1. Excessive damages, 2. insufficient evidence, or 3. decision is contrary to law
Filed any time before judgment of conviction becomes final	Filed within the period for taking an appeal
	Should include all the grounds then available and those not so included shall be deemed waived.
When granted, the original judgment is always set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered	There may be partial grant
	2nd MfR not allowed; 2nd MNT may be allowed on evidence not available before

● In criminal cases, it has been held that the lack of affidavits of merits in a motion for new tiral is not a fatal defect and can be cured by the testimony presented at the new trial (Paredes vs. Borja, L-15559, November 29, 1961). On the other hands, such lack of affidavits of merits is a fatal defect in civil actions (Rule 137, Sec. 2)

● The pro forma rule in motions for new trial, which applies to civil cases under Rule 37, does not apply to criminal cases (People vs. Colmenares, 107 Phil 220).

When is a motion for new trial prohibited?

In cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure and the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.

Can you file a motion for new trial in the Court of Appeals?

Yes. In both civil and criminal cases only on the ground of newly discovered evidence (NDE).

SEC. 14. Motion for new trial.—At any time after the appeal from the lower court has been perfected and before the judgment of the Court of Appeals convicting the appellant becomes final, the latter may move for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence material to his defense. (Rule 124)

When can you file a new trial in a criminal case before the Court of Appeals?

At any time from the time appeal is perfected until the time the Court of Appeal losses jurisdiction. Rule is the same even for civil cases.

In the Supreme Court, can you file a motion for new trial?

No. There is no provision that provides for that. If you file, it is subject to the Court’s discretion after securing a leave of court. (Salvador)

Cases

People vs. Castelo, L-10774, February 16, 1961

Evaristo et al. vs. Lastrilla, 110 Phil 181

Payo vs. Court of Appeals, L-36809, February 24, 1984

Paredes vs. Borja, L-15559, November 29, 1961

People vs. Bocar, L-27935, August 16, 1985

read more...

Physician-Patient Privilege

A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient [Rule 130, Sec. 24(c)]

Requisites:

1. Physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics

2. Information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating or curing the patient

3. Information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the reputation of the patient

4. Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is a party thereto or not

Does not apply where:

1. Communication not given in confidence

2. Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment

3. Communication was made for an unlawful purpose, as when it is intended for the commission or concealment of a crime;

4. Information was intended to be made public

5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law.

Waivers of the physician-patient privilege, cross-reference Rule 28, Sec. 3 and 4

The results of the physical and mental examination of a person, when ordered by the court, are intended to be made public; hence they can be divulged in that proceeding and cannot be objected to on the ground of privilege. Also results of autopsies or post-mortem examinations are generally intended to be divulged in court, aside from the fact that the doctor’s services were not for purposes of medical treatment.

If the party examined obtains a report on said examination or takes the deposition of the examiner, he thereby waives any privilege regarding any other examination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to be conducted on him by any other physician.

● Only persons authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics are covered by the privilege. Hence, nurses, midwives and other people who attend to the ill can be called to testify as to any matter.

● Note that the patient need not be the source of the information.

● Not necessary that the relationship was created by the voluntary act of the patient – may have been acquired by another. (e.g. patient in extremis)

● Privilege extends to all forms of communication, advice or treatment. Includes information acquired by the physician through his observations and examinations of the patient.

● The privilege does not cover expert opinion as long as the witness does not testify to matters specifically referring to the patient.

● There is no physician-patient privilege in criminal cases.

de Leon: What about civil cases impliedly instituted with criminal cases?

● A patient’s husband is not prohibited from testifying on a report prepared by his wife’s psychiatrist since he is not the treating physician (although it would be hearsay).

● A physician is not prohibited from giving expert testimony in response to a strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical or mental condition of a patient he has treated professionally. 

Cases

Lim v. CA, 214 SCRA 273 (1992) The physician-patient privilege is not violated by permitting physician to give expert testimony regarding hypothetical facts.

Krohn v. CA, 233 SCRA 146 (1994) Non-physician testimony on a medical psychologist’s report is not covered by the physician patient privilege. This is hearsay but there was no objection.

read more...

Priest-Penitent Privilege

A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. (Rule 130, Sec. 24 (d)

Requisites

a. Confession was made or advice given by the priest in his professional character in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the priest or minister belongs;

b. The confession must be confidential and penitent in character.

read more...

Public Officer’s Privilege

State Secret

A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (Rule 130, Sec. 24 (e)

Requisites:

1.  It was made to the public officer in official confidence

2.  Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the communication (as in the case of State’s secrets)

Where no public interest would be prejudiced, the rule does not apply. (Banco Filipino vs. Monetary Board, G.R. No. 70054, July 8, 1986)

• Newsman’s Privilege

Sec. 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. (RA 53, as amended by RA 1477)

Requisites of newsman’s privilege:

1. publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter

2. of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation

3. cannot be compelled to reveal

4. as to the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication

5. related in confidence

Exception: Court, a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.

• Article 233 of Labor Code

All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and the conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them.

• Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285)

Sec 9 (a) – Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential.

read more...

Parental and filial privilege

Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege.—No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

Who may not be compelled to testify?

1. Person against his parents or other direct ascendants (FILIAL PRIVILEGE)

2. Person against his children or other direct descendants (PARENTAL PRIVILEGE)

Rationale of the rule

To preserve the harmonious relations between parent and child which could ruptured through testifying in court. Furthermore, perjury may result because the parent or the child may give false testimony to protect the other. 

Testimonial privilege not a testimonial disqualification

Note that this is a testimonial privilege, not a testimonial disqualification (§22-24 of Rule 130). Here, the witness is the holder of the privilege and has the power to invoke or waive the privilege. He cannot be compelled but he is not prohibited to testify. The relative against whom he is testifying cannot invoke nor waive the privilege. 

Can a parent testify against a child or a descendant?

Yes. But he cannot be compelled.

Can a child testify against his parent or ascendant?

Yes. But he cannot be compelled.

Instance when a child can be compelled to testify 

"No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other". (Art. 215 Family Code) 

Hence, a descendant may be compelled to testify in a criminal case where:

1. the descendant-witness himself is the victim, or

2. the descendant-witness’s parent commits a crime against the descendant-witness’s other parent.

and the testimony of the descendant is indispensable. In such cases, the descendant can be required to testify.

Note that an ascendant may not be compelled to testify even if it is a crime by the descendant against the ascendant-witness. The ascendant-witness may testify voluntarily though.

read more...

Admissions of a party

Sec. 26. Admissions of a party. – The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. 

What is an admission?

● An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact (Sec. 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 

● It is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Ed., 44).

● It is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him (31 C.J.S. 1022)

Requisites for admissibility

To be admissible, an admission must:

a. Involves a matter of fact, not of law

b. Categorical and definite

c. Knowingly and voluntarily made

d. Adverse to the admitter's interest, otherwise, self-serving and inadmissible as hearsay

What is a self-serving declaration?

Self-serving declaration is one which has been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his interests. It is not admissible in evidence. It does not include his testimony in court. Cannot be considered self-serving if it was not made in anticipation of a future litigation.

Judicial admission – admissions made in the judicial proceeding under consideration.

a. Formal judicial admission – those made in writing such as in pleadings, motions, stipulations of facts.

b. Informal judicial admission – those made orally in the course of

 - the testimony of a party or

 - his witness or in depositions or affidavits or

 - statements of counsel

Extrajudicial admission – admissions made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other than the one in consideration

a. Express extrajudicial admission – those made in definite, certain and unequivocal manner

b. Implied extrajudicial admission – those which may be inferred from the act, conduct, declaration, silence or omission of a party.

            Examples:

1. Laches

2. Flight from justice

3. Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence

4. Efforts of an accused to have the case dropped through the help of relatives and various influential people

What is a confession?

A confession is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein (Sec. 33, Rule 130, Rules of Court; Tracy’s Handbook, 62 Ed., 242). It is a statement by the accused that he engaged in conduct which constitutes a crime (29A Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 708).

Admission vs. confession

● An admission in a general sense includes confessions, the former being a broader term because accordingly, a confession is also an “admission . . . by the accused of the fact charged against him or of some fact essential to the charge” (4 Wigmore, Sec. 1050). A confession is a specific type of admission which refers only to an acknowledgment of guilt. As used, the term admission refers to acknowledgment of facts which although may be incriminating falls short of an admission of guilt.

● An admission may be implied like an admission by silence; a confession cannot be implied. It should be a direct and positive acknowledgment of guilt.

1. An admission is a statement of fact which does not involve and acknowledgement of guilt or liability as is the case of a confession.

2. An admission may be express or tacit while a confession must be express.

3. Admissions may be made by third persons and, while confessions can be made only by the party himself and, in some instances, are admissible against his co-accused.

Effects of admissions

An admission by a party may be given in evidence against him (Sec. 26, Rule 132, Rules of Court). His admission is not admissible in his favor, because it would be self-serving evidence. Declarations of a party favorable to himself are not admissible as proof of the facts asserted (Cole v. Ralph, 252 US 286, 64 L Ed 567, 40 SC Ct 312, USTC 312a, 3 AFTR 3051; State v. Warren, 242 Iowa 1176, 47 NW2d 221; Jones v. Dugan, 124 Md. 346, 350, 92 A. 775).

An example considered as an admission by the Supreme Court are the following alleged statements of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada as contained in the so-called Angara Diary: (a) his proposal for a snap election in which he would not participate; (b) his statement that he would leave by Monday if the second envelope would be opened by Monday; and (c) statements like: Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. I just want to clear my name, then I will go” (Estrada vs. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108). These words were taken by the Court as an admission of his resignation.

Admissions that are admissible against a party

1. Admissions against interest

2. Compromises

3. Exceptions to Res Inter Alios Acta

a. Partner’s/Agent’s admissions

b. Co-conspirator’s statements

c.    Admission by Privies

4. Admissions by silence 

Classification of admission and confessions

1.  An admission may be express or implied. An express admission is a positive statement or act. An implied admission is one which may be inferred from the declarations or acts of a person. A confession cannot be implied. It must be a positive acknowledgment of guilt and cannot be inferred. Sec. 33 of Rule 130 refers to a confession as a “declaration” which connotes an affirmative statement from the person making the confession.

2.   An admission may be judicial or extrajudicial. An admission is judicial when made in the course of a judicial proceeding. An admission is extrajudicial when made out of court or even in a proceeding other than the one under consideration (Perry v. Simpson, Conn. 313). A confession may be also judicial or extra judicial for the same reasons (29A Am Jur 2d §711).

3.  An admission may also be adoptive. This admission occurs when a person manifests his assent to the statements of another person. The admission may be received in evidence if it can be shown that a party adopted the statements as his own (Fed. Evid. R. 801(d)(2)(B); Black’s, 5^th Ed., 44).

The statements of President Estrada as written in the Angara Diary were deemed by the Court as adoptive admissions. To rebut the argument that the diary is not the diary of the former president and thus, could not be admissible against him, the Court declared: “. . . The argument overlooks the 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).

Admission distinguished from declarations against interest

An admission is oftentimes confused with a declaration against interest. They are however distinct from each other.

(a) To be admitted as a declaration against interest, the declarant must be dead or unable to testify; an admission is admissible even if the person making the admission is alive and is in court.

(b) A declaration against interest is made before the controversy arises; an admission is made at any time, even during the trial.

(c) A declaration against interest is made against one’s pecuniary or moral interest; an admission is admissible as long as it is inconsistent with his present claim or defense and need not be against one’s pecuniary or moral interest.

(d) A declaration against interest is admissible even against third persons; and admissions are admissible only against the party making the admission.

(e) A declaration against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule; an admission is not and is admissible not as an exception to any rule.

Cases

People vs. Aling (1980) – The testimony of the accused in a parricide case to the effect that he was married to the victim is an admission against his penal interest and can sustain his conviction even in the absence of independent evidence to prove such marriage.

Facts: Norija Mohamad was stabbed in the chest and diaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital. Girlie Aling and Norija’s daughter Daria brought Norija to the hospital. They learned from the police that Norija was stabbed by her husband Airol Aling. Aling was investigated by the police and he declared in Chavacano dialect that he killed his wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife was fooling around with other men. Aling was charged with parricide and during arraignment, he pleaded guilty although he had no lawyer. A counsel de oficio was appointed for him. When he was again arraigned, he pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel. Aling was placed on the witness stand and examined by his counsel and after being informed that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment, Aling still admitted killing his wife.

Issue: WON the marriage of Aling and Norija was proven

Held: Yes. The testimony of Aling that he was married to Norija is an admission against his penal interest. It was a confirmation of the maxim simper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves to be husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.

People vs. Bocasas (1985) - Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Keller & Co. v. COB – president’s admission binds corporation 

read more...

Offer of compromise not admissible

Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. – In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) 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.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.

Offer of compromise in civil cases

In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not an admission against the offeror.

Note that the offer of compromise in civil cases 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.

Offer of compromise in criminal cases

1.  An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. However, the accused may be permitted to prove that such offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but to avoid the risks of criminal actions against him (US vs. Maqui, 27 Phil 97).

Example: Although the marriage of the accused in a rape case extinguishes the penal action (Art. 344, RPC, Alonto vs. Savellano, Jr., 287 SCRA 245), an offer of marriage is, generally speaking, an admission of guilt (People vs. Bulos, G.R. No. 123542, June 26, 2001).

2. There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer of compromise is in relation to

(a) quasi-offenses (criminal negligence); or

(b) in those cases allowed by law to be compromised (e.g. BIR can compromise tax cases. Sec. 204 RA 8424)

Plea of guilty later withdrawn

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea.

An unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser offense

An unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. (Cross-reference: Rule 116, Sec. 1(f), Rule 118, Secs. 1 and 2)

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injured party. Such humanitarian acts or charitable responses should be encouraged and rewarded, instead of being discouraged or penalized.

 

Cases

Veradero v. Insular Lumber, 46 Phil. 176 (1924) – evidence on an offer to compromise is admissible even in civil cases if it is to prove amount of a liability and not the liability itself.

US v. Torres, 34 Phil. 994 (1916) – offer of compromise in criminal cases inadmissible when accused shows that it was made not under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason; in this case, the law allowed compromise, thus the offer to compromise is not admitted.

People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676 (1995) – offer to compromise made by a person other than the accused is inadmissible if the accused repudiated the actions of such person by raising the trial court’s admission of evidence of such offer as an error.

People v. de Guzman, 265 SCRA 228 (1996) – the offer to compromise made by a person other than the accused was admitted in evidence because the accused failed to repudiate such acts by raising the trial court’s admission of evidence on such offer as an error.

People v. Yparriguirre, 268 SCRA 35 (1997) – whether a complaint has been filed or not is irrelevant as to the admissibility of an offer to compromise. 

People vs. Amiscua (1971) - In a rape case, an offer to compromise for a monetary consideration, and not to marry the victim, is an implied admission of guilt.

People vs. Valdez (1987) - An offer of marriage by the accused during the investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt.

People v. Maqui, 27 Phil. 97 (1914)

read more...