E) Admission, Confession and Res Inter Alios Acta Rule

 are often used interchangeably in ordinary concept, but, in literal and legal sense, the
two terms actually are distinct and differ from each other. Some of the distinctions
between the two are as follows:

Res inter alios acta Rule

Literally translates and means “things done between strangers ought not to injure those who
are not parties to them”1
The very embodiment of the subject rule is anchored on 2 branches:

1. " The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of

another, except as hereinafter provided." (Sec. 28 Rule 130 Admission by third party)
The first branch is based on the principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a
man's own acts, declarations and conduct are binding upon himself, and are evidence
against him. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that
a man should be bound by acts of mere unauthorized strangers.2

Exceptions to the Rule:

a. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130)
b. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule 130)
c. Admission by Privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130)

2. The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible
to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time. (Sec 34, Rule 132)

Under this branch of Res inter alios acta Rule, it provides that admission of the so-
called “propensity evidence” is prohibited. Such evidence tends to show that what a
person has done at one time is probative of the contention that he has done a similar act

1
Ibid.
2
People v. Tena, 1992, GR 100909
 at another time. In simple wordings, the rule is: the past acts of the accused are
inadmissible to prove that he acted in conformity with such previous acts.3

Admission

- an act, declaration, or omission of a party as to relevant facts of the case4

Kinds of Admission:
a. Admission of the Party
-The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to relevant fact maybe given in evidence
against him. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)

- As stated from the above provision, an act, declaration and admission of a party as to a
relevant fact maybe given as evidence against him. This rule is based on the notion that
no man would make any declaration against himself, unless it is true. 5

b. Admission by Third-party
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided." (Sec. 28 Rule 130)

The rule provided under the 1st branch of Res inter alios acta Rule applies.

c. Admission by co-partner or agent

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority
and during the existence of the partnership or agency, maybe given in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint
debtor, or other persons jointly interested with the party. (Sec 29, Rule 130)
To reiterate, the following are requisites in order that admissions of a co-partner or agent
be admissible as evidence:

3
Riano, 2016.; Tan, 2014
4
Rules of Court, Sec 26 Rule 130
5
Riano, 2016
 1. That the partnership, agency, joint interest is established by evidence other than act
or declaration (Sec 29 Rule 130)

2. The act or declaration of partner or an agent of the party is within the scope of
authority
An agent performs some service in representation of or on behalf of his principal,
thereby making him in legal contemplation, an extension of personality of the principal.
6Hence, whatever is said by an agent to a third person, during the course of agency and
within the scope of his actual authority, relative to the business contemplated by the
agency, such statement may be admissible against principal. 7

3. The act or declaration was made during the existence of the partnership or agency
Any declaration made before the existence of partnership or agency, or those
made after, are not admissible against the other partners or the principal, but remains
admissible against the partner or agent making the declaration. 8

4. Such acts or declaration maybe given in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown other than acts of declaration

d. Admission by a conspirator
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
maybe given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration.
A conspiracy exist when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8, Revised Penal Code).
Illustrative case

6
Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1868
7
Hitchman Coal & Coke v. Mitchell, 245 U.S., 229, 62 L Ed 260, 38 S Ct 65
8
Riano, 2016
 Assume that two months after successful bank robbery, AAA was arrested as a direct
participant in the crime. During a television interview, he admitted his participation in the
robbery. He also implicated BBB and CCC as his other companions in planning and executing the
robbery. Is his statement admissible?
Answer: The statement is admissible as to him (Sec 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court) but not as to B
and C (Sec. 28, Rule 130,Rules of Court).9
To be admissible against BBB and CCC, the following requisites must concur:
a. The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy.
b. The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy.
c. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such declaration or act.
NOTE: The declarations under Sec. 30 of Rule I30 are merely extrajudicial statements or
declarations. When he testifies as a witness, his statements become judicial and are admissible
not only against him but also his co-accused.
General Rule: Extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against the
said accused but inadmissible against the other accused.
EXPN: If the declarant/admitter repeats in court his extrajudicial confession during trial and the
other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross examine the admitter. 10

e. Admission by Privies

Where one derives title to the property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the
latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.11
“Privies” are persons who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or any
relation to another.12
Examples: 13
a. A lessor and his lessee

9
BAR 1991
10
People v. Buntag, 427 SCRA 180
11
Rules of Court, Sec. 31, Rule 130
12
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed., p. 1077
13
Riano, 2016
 b. A grantor and his grantee
c. An assignor and an assignee
d. An heir and his ascendants

Illustrative case:
AAA inherited a house and lot from his father, BBB. Assume that BBB, father of
CCC, while the former was alive, sold the property and, thereafter, openly told his
acquaintances that the same lot where his house stood had already been sold to DDD. Is
this declaration by BBB necessarily admissible against CCC? 14

Answer: No. It is not because the statement was made after BBB held his title to the land.
To be admissible against the successor-in-interest, the following requisites must be
present:
a. There must be an act, declaration or omission by the predecessor-in-interest.
b. The act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must have occurred while he
was holding (not after) the title to the property; and
c. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the property.
NOTE: When the former owner of the property made the declaration after he ceased to
be the owner of the property, the rule on admission by privies does not apply.
General Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another. 15

f. Admission by Silence

An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party
who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or

14
Ibid
15
Rules of Court, Sec 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court
comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, maybe given in evidence
against him. 16

- The statement contains assertions against the party which, if untrue, would be
sufficient cause for the party to make a denial.
- His failure to speak against the statement is admissible as an admission

Illustrative case
Suppose, upon seeing a policeman, a bystander, in the presence of other people, points
to a man and accuses him as the killer of another man found dead the night before. The
man pointed to does not respond. He does not deny the accusation. His failure to respond
may be given in evidence against him.
The idea of the rule on admission by silence is that if an accusation is made, and
a reasonable person would have denied the same if it were false, the failure to deny the
accusation by the person accused may be construed as an implied admission of the
truth of the accusation and may be given in evidence against him. 17
For silence to be deemed an admission, the following are necessary:
a. He heard and understood the statement;
b. He was at liberty to make a denial;
c. The statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in which he was interested
and which naturally calls for a response;
d. The facts were within his knowledge; and
e. The fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue.

g. Similar Acts as Evidence

As constituting one of the branches of Res inter acta Rule, the evidentiary rule of similar
acts as evidence provides that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time,

16
Sec 32, Rule 130, Rules of Court
17
Riano, 2016
evidence of similar acts maybe received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan
system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage and the like. 18

The rationale of the evidentiary rule under the same subject on hand guards and avoids
the practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and protracting the trial and prevents
surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants.19
Exceptions to the Rule, when evidence of similar acts or previous conduct can be
admissible: 20

a. Specific intent
b. Knowledge
c. Identity
d. Plan
e. System
f. Scheme
g. Habit
h. Custom
i. Usage
j. Actions based on fraud and deceit, and
k. Those circumstances in which evidence of the other similar crimes, acts or wrongs
previously committed by the accused are admissible to show that the offense for
which he is currently charged and his prior similar acts show the “signature” or
“handiwork” of the accused.

18
Tan, 2014
19
Cruz v. CA 293 SCRA 239
20
Riano, 2016; Tan, 2014
 HEARSAY RULE

"Section 36, Rule 130. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
excluded. — A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in these rules."

A. Meaning of Hearsay
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in part, on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to
produce it.21
Although hearsay evidence presupposes lack of personal knowledge of the truth of the
fact asserted by a witness, the purpose for which the evidence is offered is a vital element of
hearsay evidence. It is the purpose for which the evidence is offered which would determine
whether the same is hearsay or not.22
A much clearer definition of "hearsay" is found in the Federal Rules of Evidence where
'hearsay' is defined as "...a statement, other than the one made by the declarant while testifying
at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." 23 There is
agreement that the following are the specific elements of hearsay evidence:
(a) First, there must be an out-of-court statement. It doesn't really matter what the form
of the statement is. It may be oral. It may be written. It may even be a conduct, as long as that
conduct is intended by the actor as an assertion. What matters is that the statement was not
made by the declarant in the hearing or trial.
(b) Second, that statement made out of court, is repeated and offered by the witness in
court to prove the truth of the matters asserted by the statement.

B. Reason for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence

If a witness testifies on the basis of what others have told him, and not on facts which he
knows of his own personal knowledge, the testimony would be excluded as hearsay evidence.24

21
Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108
22
Riano, Evidence: The Bar Lecture Series (2016)
23
Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801[c])
24
Mallari v. People, 446 SCRA 74
This is because the witness cannot be effectively cross-examined on the matters he testified to.
His answers to questions in open court would necessarily be based on the knowledge of a person
who is not in the witness stand. The latter, called the outside declarant, cannot be cross-
examined because he is not in court.25
Thus, in criminal cases for instance, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a
violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right to confront the
witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them.26
Hearsay evidence if not objected to is admissible. However, even if admitted, it has no
probative value.27

C. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

The Rules of Court enumerates the following exceptions to the hearsay rule 28:
(a) Dying declarations (Sec. 37, Rule 130)
(b) Declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130)
(c) Act or declaration against pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130)
(d) Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec. 40, Rule 130)
(e) Common reputation (Sec. 41, Rule 130)
(f) Part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
(g) Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43, Rule 130)
(h) Entries in official records (Sec. 44, Rule 130)
(i) Commercial lists and the like (Sec. 45, Rule 130)
(j) Learned treatises (Sec. 46, Rule 130
(k) Testimony or deposition at a former trial (Sec. 47, Rule 130).
The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness has likewise provided an exception to the Hearsay
Rule.
(a) Dying declarations (Sec. 37, Rule 130)

25
Riano 2016
26
People v. Mamalias, 328 SCRA 760
27
Mallari v. People, 446 SCRA 74
28
Riano 2016
 Sec. 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death.

A dying declaration or ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order and is
entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless
and false accusation. It is thus admissible, to provide the identity of the accused and the
deceased, to show the cause of death of the deceased, and the circumstances under which the
assault was made upon him.29 The law considers the point of death as a situation so solemn and
awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court.30
Sec. 37 of Rule 130 provides that the declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. 31 As
long as the relevance is clear, a dying declaration may now be introduced in a criminal or a civil
action and the relevance is satisfied where the subject of inquiry is the death of the declarant
himself.32
A dying declaration is admissible where the proponent of the evidence shows compliance
with the following basic evidentiary foundations required by Sec. 37 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court:
(1) That the declaration is one made by a dying person;
(2) That the declaration was made by said dying person under a consciousness of his
imminent death;
(3) That the declaration refers to the cause and circumstances surrounding the death of
the declarant and not of anyone else;
(4) That the declaration is offered in a case where the declarant's death is the subject of
inquiry (People v. Matito, 423 SCRA 617; Geraldo v. People, G.R. No. 173608, November
20, 2008).

29
Riano 2016
30
People v. Cerilla, 539 SCRA 251
31
Regalado Remedial Law Compendium Vol. II 2008
32
Riano 2016
 (5) The declarant is competent as a witness had he survived (People v. Cerilla, 539 SCRA
251; Geraldo v. People, G.R. No. 173608, November 20, 2008).
(6) The declarant should have died.
(b) Declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130)

Sec. 38. Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a person deceased or
unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that
a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in
interest and against third persons.

This exception refers to a declaration made by a person who at the time his declaration
is presented in evidence is already dead or is unable to testify. This declaration must be one which
when made, was known to the declarant himself to be against his interest, pecuniary or moral,
and which would not have been made unless he believed it to be true. It is clear from the rule
that it is not enough that a declaration against interest was made. It is necessary that the
declarant knew that the statement was against his interest and which he would not have made
had it not been true.33 The declaration against interest made by the deceased, or by one unable
to testify, is admissible even against the declarant's successors in interest or even against third
persons.
(c) Act or declaration against pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130)

Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or declaration of a person
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to
him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree.

To be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, it must be shown that

(a) the declarant is dead, or unable to testify;
(b) that the declarant is related by birth or marriage to the person whose pedigree is in issue;

33
Riano 2016
(c) the declaration was made before the controversy; and
(d) the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.34

(d) Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec. 40, Rule 130)

Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The reputation or

tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of
any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying be also a
member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or
other family books or charts, engraving or rings, family portraits and the like, may be
received as evidence of pedigree.

This exception involves: (a) a statement by a member of the family either by consanguinity
or affinity; (b) the statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family in respect to the
pedigree of any member of the family; and (c) the reputation or tradition is one existing previous
to the controversy.

(e) Common reputation (Sec. 41, Rule 130)

Sec. 41. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous to the

controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or
respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and
inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation.

While common reputation in the community may establish a matter of public or general
interest, marriage or moral character, it cannot establish pedigree. This is established by
reputation in the family and not in the community.35

34
Riano 2016
35
Riano 2016
 (f) Part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130)

Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to
the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.

The use of res gestae in the Philippines is limited to two matters: (1) spontaneous
statements, and (2) verbal acts. In spontaneous exclamations or statements, the res gestae is the
startling occurrence, whereas in verbal acts, the res gestae are the statements accompanying the
equivocal act.36 Spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence must have the following
characteristics:
(a) That there is a startling event or occurrence taking place;
(b) That while the event is taking place or immediately prior to or subsequent thereto, a
statement has been made;
(c) The statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood
(d) That the statement relates to the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence37,
or that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate
attending circumstances

Verbal act is a statement accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving
it a legal significance.38 A verbal act presupposes a conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one
which in itself does not signify anything when taken separately. To be admissible under this
category, the following requisites must be present:
(a) The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
(b) The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
(c) The statement must accompany the equivocal act; and

36
Talidano v. Falcom Maritime & Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No. 172031, July 14, 2008
37
Sec. 42, Rule 130, Rules of Court
38
Riano 2016
 (d) The statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act

(g) Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43, Rule 130)

Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in
a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if
such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty
and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

The following are the elements of this exception:

(a) Entries were made at, or near the time of the transactions referred to;
(b) Such entries were made in the regular course of business;
(c) The person making the entries was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(d) The person making the entries did so in his professional capacity, or in the
performance of duty and in the regular course of business; and
(e) The person making the entry is now dead or unable to testify39

(h) Entries in official records (Sec. 44, Rule 130)

Sec. 44. Entries in official records. — Entries made in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated.

The requisites for the admissibility in evidence of entries in official records, as an exception to
the hearsay rule, are:
(a) The entry was made by a public officer or another person specially enjoined by law to
do so;
(b) It was made by the public officer in the performance of a duty;
(c) The public office had sufficient knowledge of the facts.40

39
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong, G.R. No. 155550, January 31, 2008.
40
Sabili v. COMELEC 670 SCRA 664
 (i) Commercial lists and the like (Sec. 45, Rule 130)

Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like. — Evidence of statements of matters of interest
to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter
so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation
and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.

(j) Learned treatises (Sec. 46, Rule 130)

Sec. 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject

of history, law, science or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter
stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or if a witness expert on the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession, or calling as expert in the subject.

History books, published findings of scientists fall within this exception if an expert on the
subject testifies to the expertise of the writer or if the court takes judicial notice of such fact.

(k) Testimony or deposition at a former trial (Sec. 47, Rule 130)

Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or

deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter,
may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
examine him.

The testimony contemplated is one given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or

administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter. The testimony was given by one
who is now deceased or unable to testify. Said testimony may be given in evidence against the
adverse party provided the latter had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness who gave
the previous testimony.41 To be applicable, the following requisites must be satisfied:
(a) The witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests;

41
Samalio v. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 462
 (c) The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on
different causes of action;
(d) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in
the present case; and
(e) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former
case.42
(l) Exception to the Hearsay Rule Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
A statement made by a child, in child abuse cases, describing any act or attempted act of
child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in
any criminal or non-criminal proceeding, although before such hearsay statement may be
admitted, certain requisites must concur:
(a) The proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such
statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object;
(b) If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party, require the
child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination
by the adverse party;
(c) When the child is unavailable (as when the child is deceased, suffers from physical
infirmity, mental illness, loss of memory, or because the child will be exposed to severe
psychological injury), the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent and
the hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible
evidence.43

42
Manliclic v. Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007
43
Sec. 28, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness