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, 5th 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
Classification of admission and confessions
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, 5th 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
0
Comments
