Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
185522
Contrary to petitioners contention, the aforequoted letter does not contain an express
acknowledgment of liability. At most, what Kalalo acknowledged was the receipt of the statement
of account, not the existence of her liability to SMC.
The fact that Kalalo made a compromise offer to petitioner SMC cannot be considered as an
admission of liability. In Pentagon Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals the court examined the
reasons why compromise offers must not be considered as evidence against the offeror:
1. The law favors the settlement of controversies out of court, a person is entitled to
"buy his or her peace" without danger of being prejudiced in case his or her efforts
fail. Any communication made toward that end will be regarded as privileged. Indeed, if
every offer to buy peace could be used as evidence against a person who presents it,
many settlements would be prevented and unnecessary litigation would result
2. Offers for compromise are irrelevant because they are not intended as admissions
by the parties making them. It is made with a view to avoid controversy and save the
expense of litigation. It is the distinguishing mark of an offer of compromise that it is
made tentatively, hypothetically, and in contemplation of mutual concessions.
Also, the Offer of Compromise was made prior to the filing of the criminal complaint. The Offer of
Compromise was clearly not made in the context of a criminal proceeding and, therefore, cannot
be considered as an implied admission of guilt.