Evidence: Rule 129 — What Need Not Be Proved
RULE 129 — WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Three (3) matters which can displace evidence.
Judicial notice
Judicial admission
Presumption
A party's evidence despite judicial notice and the adverse party's evidence to impugn judicial notice
Judicial notice allows a court to recognize certain facts as true without requiring formal evidence. This can expedite proceedings by eliminating the need to prove undisputed facts.
When a court takes judicial notice of a fact, that fact does not require further proof from the party that would typically have the burden of establishing it. The rationale is that these facts are so universally accepted or established that they do not need evidentiary support.
While judicial notice relieves a party from introducing evidence to establish certain facts, it does not prevent the opposing party from presenting evidence to dispute those facts.
Judicial notice does not preclude an adversary from challenging the validity of the noticed fact through evidence.
The adverse party retains the right to introduce evidence that contradicts a fact that the court has judicially noticed.
This serves as a crucial check in the legal process, allowing for the possibility of disputing what is perceived as established.
Evidence to overthrow a presumption
Types of Presumptions:
Disputable Presumptions:
These are presumptions that can be challenged by the opposing party.
They can be overturned by presenting contrary evidence, allowing for a more dynamic evidential landscape.
Conclusive Presumptions:
These presumptions do not allow for rebuttal.
Once established, they cannot be contradicted by evidence. However, the notion of "conclusive presumption" is often criticized because it can imply a legal conclusion that negates the need for further proof.
Judicial notice
Concept
Judicial notice refers to the recognition by a judge of certain facts based on the assumption that these facts are within their knowledge.
It allows a court to accept a fact without requiring the standard evidentiary support typically necessary in legal proceedings.
Essentially, judicial notice serves as a substitute for formal proof and carries the same weight as traditional evidence.
Facts that are judicially noticed do not need to be proven through evidence.
The rationale behind this doctrine is that it would be unreasonable for courts to require formal proof of facts that are common knowledge or facts that they can easily verify due to their official capacity.
This principle applies not only to facts directly related to the case but also to materially evidentiary facts.
Lopez vs. Sandiganbayan, Justice Hermosisima, Jr.:
Judges should approach cases without preconceived notions about the facts, relying solely on evidence presented during the trial.
Section 1, Rule 129, of the Revised Rules of Court, however, provides that certain facts need not be proved because they are judicially noticed by the Courts.
Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is equally as persuasive as actual evidence presented, whether testimonial or documentary.
Ruling inconclusive
Taking judicial notice does not imply that the matter is indisputable; it is merely a prima facie recognition, leaving it open to controversy.
A positive ruling on judicial notice can be reversed on appeal if there is a finding that the fact is not widely recognized or known.
Distinct from personal knowledge
Judicial notice should not be confused with a judge's personal or private knowledge.
There is a nuanced distinction between what a judge knows personally and what they recognize in their official capacity.
A judge may need to set aside their personal knowledge when rendering a decision.
Example:
Where a judge may personally know a convicted individual is innocent, they must refrain from using this knowledge from the bench.
Instead, any personal knowledge must be expressed as a witness if relevant to the case.
Basis for Judicial Notice
The foundation for judicial notice can be traced to civil and canon law, where what is known to a magistrate need not be proven. The convenience and expediency of judicial notice can eliminate the need for evidence in matters not genuinely disputed.
Judges' awareness of adjudicative facts can be classified as mandatory or discretionary.
Adjudicative facts refer to facts applied in adjudication typically presented to juries.
Judicial notice serves as a substitute for proving facts that can be established through ordinary evidentiary means.
Judicial notice allows judges to accept facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute, effectively taking them out of the adversary process and treating them as established truths.
Mandatory or permissive
Whether judicial notice shall be mandatory or merely permissive is a question on which it is difficult to lay down any general rule.
For the judge to refuse to take judicial notice of matters that are clearly certain and indisputable would be error, but he may properly require proof of less certain matters.
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. –
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence,
of the existence and territorial extent of states,
their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments
of the National Government of the Philippines,
the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
Mandatory judicial notice
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence: EPF-LA-PO-NTG
existence and territorial extent of states,
their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality
the law of nations
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines,
the laws of nature,
the measure of time
the geographical divisions.
The addition of the phrase "national government of the" merely clarifies that the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments referred to in the provision are those of the national government of the Philippines.
Section 2(1) of Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987:
The "Government of the Republic of the Philippines" encompasses the corporate governmental entity through which government functions are exercised across the country.
This includes various arms of political authority at all levels, such as autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay subdivisions.
On a national scale, the term refers to the three branches of government as mandated by the Constitution:
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
At the local level, it pertains to the regional, provincial, city, municipal, and barrio governments.
Judicial notice extends to official acts from the three branches of the Philippine government. This includes:
Legislative journals
Opinions of the Secretary of Justice
Judicial records
Decisions from appellate courts, such as the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
However, it does not encompass decisions from coordinate trial courts or within branches of the same judicial sphere.
It specifically excludes ordinances and regulations enacted by local boards and councils.
Matters of compulsory judicial notice
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence: EPF-LA-PO-NTG
Existence and territorial extent of states
Courts are mandated to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of nations and states, as well as the organization of states into subdivisions like towns and counties. This means they do not require formal proof for such facts.
Judicial notice extends to the jurisdiction exercised by the government and its recognition or denial of foreign sovereignty, based on public acts of the legislature and executive.
Political history
Courts recognize matters of general history and significant historical events that have materially affected nations.
Examples:
United States' entry into World War I
Historical facts leading to constitutional amendments.
Forms of government and symbols of nationality
Courts recognize symbols of authority of foreign states, including national flags and seals.
This recognition reflects the sovereignty and legitimacy of those states.
Law of nations
Foreign laws are not subject to judicial notice without an enabling statute. They must be properly alleged and proven in court.
Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals:
The court highlighted the necessity of proving foreign laws, particularly in situations involving international air travel:
The petitioners' claim of bad faith by the airline was valid; however, the alleged U.S. regulation permitting overbooking was not proven.
Courts require evidence of foreign laws, which may be presented through official publications or certified copies from authorized officers, including embassy personnel.
In the absence of proof, foreign law is presumed to be similar to Philippine law, consistent with the doctrine of processual presumption. However, any deviation from this presumption must be established through judicial admission.
Determining foreign law is the responsibility of the judge, not a factual question for a jury.
Sakai vs. Republic:
Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments or laws. This emphasizes the necessity for foreign laws to be established through appropriate evidence in Philippine courts.
Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
The public seals of foreign states are widely recognized as credible and do not require proof; this principle extends to the seals of foreign admiralty and maritime courts. If a judgment bears such a seal, it is considered sufficiently authenticated without further proof.
Political constitution and history of the Philippines
The political history of the Philippines, including events such as the transfer of the seat of government to Baguio on February 5, 1945, is recognized as public knowledge.
Courts take judicial notice of these historical facts, provided they pertain to general public interest.
Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines
Judicial notice encompasses the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Philippine government. This includes:
Legislative journals.
Opinions and adjudications by government departments and the Supreme Court.
However, decisions from subordinate courts (such as municipal courts) are not automatically taken as judicial notice unless required by statute or specific circumstances.
Example:
The Regional Trial Court may recognize municipal ordinances only when mandated by law or when hearing appeals from decisions of First Level Courts.
A pardon is regarded as an official act of grace from the executive authority.
Its validity depends on its delivery to the individual, as it exempts them from legal punishment for a crime.
Courts are expected to have knowledge of the laws of their sovereignty, meaning they do not require evidence for established public laws.
City of Batangas vs. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation:
LGUs exercise delegated police power and must act within the boundaries of national laws. Ordinances passed by LGUs must conform to state statutes.
Local ordinances cannot contradict national laws and must be consistent with the general welfare clause.
For instance, the court invalidated an ordinance granting power to fix subscriber rates that conflicted with the National Telecommunications Commission's jurisdiction.
Municipal ordinances hold a subordinate status to state laws. Any ordinance conflicting with a general state law is considered invalid. Municipalities cannot regulate matters fully covered by state legislation, as exemplified in the decision surrounding the regulation of cable television operations.
The principle maintains that municipalities, granted power to enact ordinances, must do so consistently with general laws, reflecting an implied restriction on their authority.
Laws of nature
Courts take judicial notice of natural occurrences that can be consistently observed, including:
Action of the Elements
weather patterns
natural disasters
other elemental actions that affect the environment
Recurrence of Seasons:
predictable change of seasons , influencing various legal aspects like agricultural timelines and seasonal events.
Calendar Events:
correlation between days of the week, months, and years
Time Differences
time varies based on geographical location, particularly regarding longitude
different times for sunrise and sunset, which can impact legal situations involving time-sensitive events or actions
Celestial Movements
paths of celestial bodies, such as the sun and moon, are known constants that courts can reference without proof
Agricultural Knowledge
established seasons and times for planting crops
general care and growth cycles of crops are understood
Human Life Expectancy
normal gestation period.
average life expectancies and mortality rates based on established tables
It is essential, however, that the events invariably occur.
Measure of time
Judicial notice regarding the measure of time encompasses various time-related facts that are universally acknowledged and do not require additional proof.
Calendar Weeks
Sunrise and Sunset
Natural Conditions of Visibility:
Article 13 of the New Civil Code and Sections 1-2 of Rule 22 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure outline the computation of time and specific time-related legal definitions, ensuring that temporal matters are clearly established in legal contexts.
Geographical divisions
Judicial notice of geographical divisions pertains to the recognition of physical characteristics and topographical features of a region or locality.
Courts are generally aware of these geographical facts without needing evidence, as they are part of common knowledge.
Topographical Features:
location, source, size, and course of major rivers within the jurisdiction, which may be relevant in cases involving water rights or environmental regulations
navigability of rivers, impacting transportation and trade
Urban and Rural Areas:
location of cities and towns, including their relative positions and distances from one another
railroad connections and customary travel routes, which can affect legal matters involving transportation or zoning.
Population Facts:
population of cities and towns, which may be relevant in cases involving local governance, resource allocation, or public health matters
Subdivision of Jurisdictions
how states are divided into counties, cities, and towns, including the specific locations of these subdivisions, pertinent in determining jurisdictional issues or local ordinances
Rule adopted by an administrative agency and on file with the UP Law Center
Apart from the foregoing enurneration, the court shall take judicial notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified rules with the University of the Philippines Law Center.
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. –
A court may take judicial notice of matters
which are of public knowledge,
or are capable of unquestionable demonstration,
or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
Discretionary judicial notice
A court may take judicial notice of matters which are:
public knowledge,
capable of unquestionable demonstration,
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
Discretionary judicial notice
Categories of Discretionary Judicial Notice
Public Knowledge
Facts that are widely known by the general public, such as the harmful effects of certain substances or the intrinsic dangers of explosives.
Example:
Courts in the Philippines have judicially recognized "shabu" as methamphetamine hydrochloride and the dangerous nature of dynamite.
Capable of Unquestionable Demonstration:
Facts that can be easily proven without dispute.
Example:
The value of commonly known items like appliances and canned goods, as where a lady judge can easily recognize the value of the stolen items.
Ought to be Known by Judges Due to Their Judicial Functions
Matters that judges are expected to be familiar with as part of their role.
Example:
The common court practice of photocopying records, as long as the documents are not confidential or prohibited from reproduction by the rules.
Commonly Known Facts
To take judicial notice of a fact, it must be part of common or general knowledge. This means that the fact should be widely recognized or accepted by the public without significant disagreement.
The test for judicial notice is whether the fact is so well known that it can be accepted without formal proof.
However, universal belief is not necessary; it is sufficient if the fact is familiar to most people, or at least to those involved in the specific matter.
In the current technological age, courts have acknowledged that business transactions can occur through methods like teleconferencing. The courts may take judicial notice of these modern practices, reflecting the ongoing evolution in how individuals interact and conduct business.
Courts may also take judicial notice of closely related proceedings in other cases, particularly when those cases are deeply connected to the matter at hand. If the proceedings are so intertwined or interdependent, judicial notice may be invoked to acknowledge facts from those related cases without requiring additional proof.
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. –
During the pre-trial and the trial,
the court, motu proprio or upon motion,
shall hear the parties
on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal,
the court, motu proprio or upon motion,
may take judicial notice of any matter
and shall hear the parties thereon
if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
Procedure
The word "pre-trial" has been added because a court may properly indicate to the parties its intention, or the parties may request the court, to take judicial notice of a particular matter during the pre-trial.
The word "motion" has been substituted for the word "request" because the Sub-Committee was of the view that this is the more apt or accurate word.
The words "on the propriety of taking" judicial notice have been added to clarify the purpose of the hearing i.e., whether the matter involved is a proper subject of discretionary judicial notice. The same reason underlies the substitution of the word "motion" in the second paragraph of Section 3.
For the purpose of uniformity, the words "on its own initiative, or on request of a party" was replaced with "motu propio or upon motion."
Hearing: information or evidence
a) presentation of information
A hearing may be necessary not to present evidence, but to allow parties to provide information relevant to the appropriateness of taking judicial notice of a matter.
Hearings can occur during or after a trial, prior to judgment, or on appeal.
However, on appeal, the court may only take judicial notice of decisive points related to material issues in the case.
The court can initiate the procedure (sua sponte) or act upon a proposal from a party.
No evidence is required from the party alleging a fact for judicial notice. If a judge is unfamiliar with a fact, they may consult external sources or may require the party to present documents or references before taking notice.
b) presentation of evidence
When exercising discretionary judicial notice, a hearing is necessary to present evidence, such as rental value, relevant to the case.
A court cannot take judicial notice of matters that require evidence, such as public knowledge or facts that ought to be known due to judicial function, without allowing parties to be heard.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Honeycomb Farms Corporation:
The court ruled that it erred in taking judicial notice of the commercial nature of a land parcel without allowing parties to present evidence on this classification.
The court stressed the necessity of caution and the requirement that notoriety must exist before judicial notice is taken.
Judicial Knowledge vs. Judicial Notice:
Judicial notice is not merely based on a judge's personal knowledge. The knowledge must be recognized and notorious, not just known to the individual judge.
The court must distinguish between the two and exercise judicial notice carefully, particularly in significant cases involving large land areas.
Original of the document
Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:
The court emphasized the necessity of presenting original documents for comparison and verification.
The failure to provide original copies of exhibits, such as SEC registrations, rendered photocopies inadmissible.
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) correctly determined that the SEC registration and operating permits were not public documents capable of unquestionable demonstration, thus not suitable for discretionary judicial notice without proper evidence. According to Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, judicial notice cannot be used to bypass the evidence requirement.
Rule 16, Section 3 mandates a hearing before the court can take judicial notice of any matter, especially if it is crucial to a material issue in the case. This ensures all parties have the opportunity to present relevant arguments.
Vi Chemical Products, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs:
The Supreme Court ruled against the assertion that priopionic glycine and glutamic acid were identical.
The court stated that the technical nature of chemical components requires specialized knowledge, and such facts are not generally known to warrant judicial notice.
The court reiterated that facts must be public knowledge or of unquestionable demonstration to qualify for judicial notice. The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate this knowledge, which was not fulfilled in the case.
People vs. Romy Lim:
The court acknowledges that certain facts, like the typical nature of arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs being made without warrants, are common knowledge and can be subject to judicial notice.
Article in the website, internet
Juan vs. Juan:
The Supreme Court addressed the limitations of judicial notice regarding articles sourced from the internet.
The Court emphasized that the article referenced by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not meet the necessary criteria for judicial notice because it was not authoritatively settled and contained elements of doubt or uncertainty. Relying on credible sources when considering information for judicial notice is important.
The Court pointed out that many articles found online can be easily edited, and their sources may be unverifiable. Thus, reliance on such articles for judicial notice is discouraged. There is a need for caution when using internet-sourced information in legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court decided to remand the case back to the RTC for proper disposition. The Court noted that it could not determine based on the existing records and the issues raised—specifically regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s certificate of registration by the Intellectual Property Office—who had the superior right to use the trade/business/service name "Lavandera Ko."
Judicial policy on judicial notice
In fine, the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts.
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.
Section 4. Judicial admissions. –
An admission, oral or written,
made by [the] party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that
it was made through palpable mistake
or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.
Judicial admission
An admission is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party concerning the existence of a fact that may be detrimental to their interest.
When a party makes such an admission, it relieves the opposing party from the obligation to prove the fact that has been admitted.
Admissions are treated as evidence against the declarant, favoring the adverse party.
a) No necessity for personal knowledge of the declarant
Unlike ordinary witnesses, personal knowledge is not a prerequisite for making an admission.
A party's statement may be treated as an admission, even if the declarant does not have firsthand knowledge of the facts.
Example:
Statements made by a party's agent or employee may be used as admissions against the party, regardless of whether the declarant personally knew the details of the matter.
b) Verbal precision is not required
When proving an oral admission, the exact words used are not necessary.
The substance or general effect of the admission is sufficient.
This rule acknowledges that memory may not retain precise words over time, especially in spoken conversations.
While a witness may not recall the exact wording, as long as they remember the essence of the conversation, their testimony is admissible.
However, a mere summary or digest of the conversation is insufficient; the key points of the admission must be presented.
An admission made verbally can be proven by any competent witness who heard it or by the defendant themselves.
The witness does not need to recall the specific date of the conversation, nor do they need to repeat the exact words of the statement.
The law recognizes that the precise recollection of words may not always be possible, and thus the witness's testimony about the substance of the admission is acceptable.
Self-disserving
A statement or act is only admissible as an admission if it is self-disserving. This means the statement or act should be prejudicial to the party making it, allowing an inference to be drawn against that party.
Self-disserving or self-harming statements are those that harm the interest of the party who makes them, in contrast to self-serving statements, which benefit the party making them.
Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a fact that is judicially admitted in the course of the proceedings does not require proof.
Judicial admissions are conclusive and binding within the same proceedings. They waive the need for further proof or evidence of the admitted fact.
Exception: A judicial admission may be challenged if:
It is shown that there was a palpable mistake.
There was no admission made by the party.
Admissions by a party are admissible not because they are inherently more reliable than other forms of hearsay but because of the nature of the adversary process.
When a party's out-of-court statement is offered against them, they cannot object to the lack of cross-examination or other testimonial safeguards.
This is because they themselves made the statement.
Admissions are based on estoppel principles, meaning a party cannot deny or contradict their own statement if it has influenced the proceedings.
Estoppel applies only between the parties involved and their privies (those legally connected or successor-in-interest).
Article 1439 of the Civil Code emphasizes that estoppel is effective only between the parties or their successors.
Admissions, whether explicitly made to a person or implied through conduct, bind the party making them. This is grounded in public policy and good faith, preventing a party from repudiating their own statements.
Gonzales-Saldana vs. Spouses Niamatali:
A party who makes a judicial admission cannot later dispute that admission.
It waives the need for proof, removing the admitted fact from the scope of controversy.
It is conclusive against the party making the admission.
A party cannot take a position inconsistent with what has been admitted during the proceedings.
Qualified judicial admission
Statements in pleadings that are qualified or subject to conditions are not always considered absolute judicial admissions.
Bitong v. Court of Appeals:
Admissions must be clear and definite; statements that are limited, qualified, or expanded through special defenses should be viewed in their entirety and context.
When a party introduces a qualified admission, the court must consider the full scope of the statement, including any other parts of the pleading that might limit or clarify the admission's meaning.
Admissions should be weighed along with any statements that neutralize or explain their impact.
Contesting a judicial admission
A judicial admission can be contested if:
It is shown to have been made through palpable mistake.
It is shown that no such admission was made—for instance, if the admission is taken out of context or misinterpreted.
Evidence outside the admission (aliunde) may be introduced to prove that the admission was made mistakenly or that it was not meant as an absolute assertion.
This evidence can demonstrate that the party did not intend to admit a particular fact as stated or that the admission was taken out of its proper context.
Gardner v. Court of Appeals:
Recognized that an admission in pleadings is not always absolute, and it can be contested through subsequent testimony or evidence that provides a different context or clarification.
Atillo III v. Court of Appeals:
Clarifies that while admissions in pleadings generally bind the party, this is not without exceptions.
Misinterpretation or context matters can allow for contestation.
Republic v. Sereno:
Involved a clarification of statements made during a House committee inquiry, emphasizing that taking statements out of context can lead to a misrepresentation of an admission.
Courts must interpret admissions in light of the entire context of the pleadings and not isolate particular statements.
The guiding principle is fairness, ensuring that a party is not unfairly bound by statements that do not reflect the full scope of their intent or knowledge.
When drafting pleadings, it is critical for parties to be precise in language to avoid unintended admissions.
If facing an adverse interpretation of an admission, a party should demonstrate the broader context or present additional evidence to clarify the intended meaning.
An express or implicit judicial admission by omission is insoluble especially if assailed only on appeal.
A party who fails to object at the appropriate time, such as before entering a plea or during the offer of evidence, is deemed to have waived their right to object. This is especially relevant if the issue is raised only on appeal.
Saraum vs. People:
An accused who does not question the legality of their arrest before entering a plea is considered to have waived the right to challenge it. Similarly, objections to evidence must be raised before or during trial, not for the first time on appeal.
An accused may be estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to invoke the matter before arraignment or entering his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
People vs. Badilla and People vs. Tripoli:
Raising objections to non-compliance with the chain of custody for the first time on appeal is too late.
If no challenge was made during the trial, the court will assume the evidence's integrity.
Non-compliance with RA 9165 and the Chain of Custody
Section 21 of RA 9165: Requires the immediate inventory and photographing of seized items during drug operations.
Non-compliance and Justifiable Grounds: Failure to strictly comply with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved and there are justifiable reasons for the non-compliance.
Evidence, even if initially inadmissible, becomes admissible if no objection is raised during the trial. A party cannot object to such evidence for the first time on appeal.
People vs. Ros:
The failure to question the safekeeping and integrity of seized items during the trial results in a waiver of the right to challenge it on appeal.
Once a party makes a judicial admission, they cannot contradict it later. This includes statements or admissions made in pleadings, which become conclusive against the party that made them.
A party cannot take a position that is inconsistent with what they initially admitted or pleaded. The failure to raise timely objections results in an acceptance of the evidence presented, and the court is bound to consider it.
Gonzales-Saldana vs. Spouses Niamatali:
Judicial admissions are conclusive and remove the admitted facts from the field of controversy.
A judicial admission does not require evidence, is conclusive, and all proofs to the contrary must be ignored
An admission made in the course of judicial proceedings that does not require further evidence. It is considered conclusive and binding on the party that made it.
No additional evidence is needed to support a judicial admission, and all contradictory evidence must be disregarded regardless of whether an objection is raised by the opposing party.
A judicial admission does not require proof; it follows that no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made.
An omitted theory assailed or considered on appeal of a criminal case.
Judicial admissions become conclusive on the party that made them, which means that all evidence submitted that contradicts these admissions should be ignored.
The presence of a judicial admission can render subsequent evidence concerning the same fact immaterial since the fact is no longer contested.
Evidence despite a judicial admission
There is a viewpoint suggesting that evidence can still be presented despite judicial admissions based on the trial judge's discretion.
American courts have differing opinions on this matter:
Some argue that admitting a fact eliminates the need for further evidence, considering it superfluous.
Others believe that a party should not be deprived of moral support for their claims due to an admission.
Evidence is deemed material if it proves a fact that is disputed. However, if a fact is not contested due to a judicial admission, then evidence pertaining to that fact is considered immaterial.
There can be scenarios where a party implicitly abandons the benefit of a judicial admission, particularly when they introduce evidence concerning material facts that were not contested.
Evidence meant to supplement a judicial admission should be excluded because:
The fact is already established through the admission.
Introducing additional evidence could clutter the trial process and complicate the issues at hand.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan:
Once a party makes a judicial admission, they cannot later insist on introducing evidence that contradicts or complicates that admission outside the usual procedural order.
Waiver of proof
A party that judicially admits a fact waives the need for further proof regarding that fact. This admission is binding and cannot be later contested by the party who made it.
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the fact since a judicial admission is a waiver of proof.
Because of the admission, the production of evidence is unnecessary, and the admitted fact is removed from the realm of controversy.
Allegations or statements made in pleadings are conclusive against the pleader. Once an admission is made, the party cannot adopt a contrary position or introduce evidence to refute the admission.
Waiver of the benefit of a judicial admission
Admissions made by a party may be waived, either expressly or implicitly, by the adverse party. This waiver renders the admission effectively non-existent.
Example:
If a plaintiff presents evidence to establish the genuineness of a document and does not object to the defendant's evidence, the plaintiff is considered to have waived the implied admission of the defendant.
Admission of fact or of testimony
A stipulation of facts cannot be contradicted, while a stipulation of testimony can be.
An agreement between counsel about what a witness would testify to is not equivalent to proof. The trial court cannot accurately evaluate the credibility of witnesses who are not present for cross-examination.
A conviction for crime should not rest upon such mere conjecture.
United States v. Pobre:
The court critiqued reliance on unproduced witnesses' contradictory statements.
United States v. Castaneda:
The court allowed the stipulation that uncalled defense witnesses would testify a certain way, asserting it was beneficial to the defendant, who avoided cross-examination.
An admission is defined as the acknowledgment of a fact or circumstances that may imply guilt. However, it is not enough on its own to establish guilt.
Admissions are sometimes referred to as "a little brother of a confession," indicating they share similarities but are not as definitive.
Who can register a judicial admission
Party
A judicial admission must originate from the real party in interest, not merely from a nominal party.
If a party is unrepresented by counsel, only that party or their authorized representative can make a judicial admission.
When a judicial admission is made by a party on record and is the real party in interest, it can be used against them by the opposing party. This means the admissions made by a nominal party (e.g., an assignor) are typically not admissible against the real party (e.g., an assignee).
Early cases allowed declarations by nominal parties to affect the rights of the real party. However, subsequent rulings established that the declarations of a nominal party are inadmissible against the real party.
For instance, if an assignee sues in the name of the assignor, any admissions made by the assignor after the assignment cannot affect the assignee’s rights.
Non-party
Statements made by a non-party can be admissible if they demonstrate the declarant’s substantial interest in the case outcome. This includes individuals like agents, joint owners, or predecessors.
Statements by one who is not a party to the record may be admitted in evidence on proof that the declarant has a substantial interest in the result of the litigation.
Examples:
In a suit involving a trustee, the admissions of the cestui que trust (the beneficiary) are admissible because they are deemed the real parties in interest.
In actions against a sheriff for a deputy's default, the deputy’s declarations may be admissible as they are accountable to the sheriff.
The admissions of a principal may be admissible against a surety if the contract implies that the surety is responsible for the principal's actions. Generally, a principal’s statements are not admissible unless made during the course of employment and part of the res gestae.
Before admitting statements from someone who is not a record party, the declarant's interest must be established through competent evidence.
Statements made after a declarant has lost interest in the matter are considered hearsay, not admissions.
Party or Counsel?
Briboneria vs. Court of Appeals:
Under Section 1, Rule 26 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a request for admission must be served directly upon the party.
Failure to do so means the party cannot be deemed to have admitted the facts or documents in the request due to non-response.
A party should not be compelled to admit facts already admitted in their pleadings or required to reiterate denials made in previous answers.
While Section 4, Rule 129 allows for judicial admissions by parties, if represented by counsel, the admissions can be made by the attorney as an agent of the party. This is predicated on the understanding that general authority to conduct a trial includes authority to make admissions.
PSCFC Financial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals:
An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent a party and respond to requests for admission.
Therefore, a response made by a lawyer is sufficient and does not negate the rules regarding admissions.
The principles of agency in the Civil Code support the idea that a party can utilize counsel for responses without needing a special power of attorney unless specified exceptions apply.
The court underscored that Rule 26 should not be construed to prohibit parties from engaging counsel to respond to admissions.
Even if counsel exceeds their authority, only the party has the prerogative to challenge the counsel's actions; the opposing party cannot object if the represented party does not contest the response.
Agbayani vs. Lupa Realty Holding Corporation,
The admission made by counsel during a pre-trial conference was recognized as a judicial admission, qualifying as a deliberate and clear statement regarding essential facts known to the party.
Theory of adoptive admission
An adoptive admission occurs when a party, through their words or conduct, adopts or ratifies the statement made by another person.
Under Rule 801(d)(2)(B) of the 2018 Federal Rules of Evidence, an out-of-court statement made by a non-party can be attributed to a party if the party expressly or implicitly adopts that statement.
A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify another's statement.
Evidence of statements made by another person becomes admissible against a party if that party has clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted those statements.
Adoptive admissions can occur in several ways:
Express Agreement
A party explicitly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another.
Repetition
The party repeats the statement made by another person.
Subsequent Acceptance
The party hears a statement and later makes a statement that accepts or builds upon the assertion made by another.
Selective Rebuttal
The party responds to specific points raised by another while ignoring further points made.
Written Statements
A party reads and signs a written statement made by another person.
Modes of Adoptive Admission Adoptive admissions can manifest in two primary ways:
Adoption by Conduct
A party may adopt another person’s oral or written statements through conduct that expresses their belief in the truthfulness of those statements. This can occur in various manners, such as:
Explicit Agreement Response Reflecting Agreement: A party's response to a statement that indicates agreement or acceptance.
Indirect Agreement: A party may adopt a statement without fully knowing its content, primarily if their adoption is based on the reliability of the declarant rather than the truth of the statement itself.
Admission by Silence:
A party's failure to refute an accusatory statement, which a reasonable person would typically challenge under similar circumstances, can also serve as an adoptive admission.
This is particularly relevant in the context of legal proceedings, where silence can imply agreement.
The burden of proof rests on the proponent of the evidence to demonstrate that the party intended to adopt the statement in question. This requirement ensures that a clear intent to adopt the statement exists, whether through affirmative conduct or silence.
Parameters of a lawyer's authority
The authority of an attorney to make admissions is generally restricted to the specific action for which they are retained.
Admissions made by an attorney in one case do not carry over to another case unless expressly authorized or if the new case is related to the prior controversy.
While an attorney can bind their client through admissions, such admissions should not exceed the implied authority that includes procedural matters.
For instance, any admission that waives or undermines a client's cause of action exceeds the attorney's authority.
Attorneys are presumed to be properly authorized to represent any case in which they appear, as per Section 21 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This presumption holds unless challenged by the opposing party or in specific contexts where additional authority is required, such as during pre-trial conferences.
The form of a judicial admission
Judicial admissions can take various forms, including:
Oral Admissions
These can occur in open court and are considered valid regardless of their formality.
Implied Admissions
Admissions may also be implied through a party's conduct, which can be inferred from behavior or actions that suggest acceptance of certain facts.
Rule 129: Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a judicial admission can be verbal or written and does not hinge on a specific format.
The courts recognize that the nature of an admission—whether oral or written—is not legally significant as long as the admission is clear and deliberate.
"Negative Pregnant"
A "negative pregnant" is a type of denial that implicitly acknowledges the truth of an opposing party's claim:
It is a form of denial that also suggests an affirmative implication favorable to the other party. For example, if a party denies owing a debt but acknowledges having made partial payments, this denial can be seen as an implicit admission of the debt's existence.
Example:
When a party pays money into court, it is treated as an implicit admission that they owe the amount tendered for the stated cause.
Such payment constitutes an acknowledgment of various facts that would support the opposing party's claim.
While judicial admissions can be oral, there are circumstances where agreements between attorneys must be in writing for enforcement in court. Some jurisdictions may require that all agreements, including judicial admissions, be documented to ensure they are enforceable, emphasizing the need for clarity and formality in certain legal transactions.
Pre- trial
Civil Cases:
Governed by Sections 4, 6, and 7, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Involves stipulations that can be formed by parties or counsel with authority.
Oral judicial admissions made by a party or counsel are effective and do not require written form.
Criminal Cases:
Governed by the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 2, Rule 118.
Requires written agreements or admissions to be signed by both the accused and counsel to be admissible against the accused.
Judicial Admissions:
In civil cases, oral admissions during pre-trial are valid and can be used in court.
In criminal cases, admissions must be in writing to be considered valid against the accused.
The absence of written agreements or signatures by the accused renders the stipulation inadmissible.
All agreements made during the pre-trial must be reflected in the Pre-Trial Order, which must be signed by all parties involved.
Trial
Criminal Cases:
During the trial, oral representations by counsel can serve as admissions against the defendant, as established.
An attorney's statements during the trial may be considered judicial admissions, binding the defendant, even if the defendant did not personally sign off on them.
Civil Cases:
Stipulations of facts must be formalized in writing per Section 6, Rule 30 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
If parties agree on some facts but dispute others, the trial must proceed to establish the disputed facts through evidence.
Judicial Admissions:
Representations made by an attorney during trial are considered binding, as the attorney acts as the agent of the client. Admissions made by counsel are conclusive unless withdrawn.
Judicial admissions may occur during or even after the trial, reinforcing their significance in establishing facts.
Stipulation of Facts:
In civil cases, Section 6, Rule 30 emphasizes the necessity of a written agreement to stipulate facts. The court can then render a judgment based on these agreed-upon facts without needing further evidence.
If some facts remain disputed, evidence must be introduced concerning those issues.
Impermissible admissions
Parties in both civil and criminal cases generally have the liberty to stipulate facts during trials. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to legal restrictions, particularly concerning matters of public interest and personal status.
Marriage Annulment and Legal Separation:
The parties involved in a petition for annulment of marriage or legal separation cannot stipulate or compromise on the validity of their marriage or legal separation grounds.
These matters are considered public policy and cannot be altered through private agreements.
Criminal Liability:
While parties may settle civil liabilities arising from a crime, they cannot stipulate to extinguish the public action that seeks to impose criminal penalties.
The state's right to prosecute is independent of private agreements between the offended party and the accused.
Civil Liability vs. Criminal Liability:
As stated by legal authorities, even if the injured party fully restores property or waives indemnification, this does not impede the public prosecutor's duty to pursue criminal charges. The rationale is that criminal actions serve public interest and societal order by ensuring that crimes are punished.
Immutability of Public Policy:
The law protects the sanctity of personal status (e.g., marriage, separation) and public order. Therefore, stipulations regarding these issues are impermissible, as they affect rights that are not solely within the control of the parties but are of societal concern.
The state has a vested interest in prosecuting crimes to maintain order and uphold the law, emphasizing that no private agreement can override this responsibility.
Courts maintain authority over personal status matters, and any stipulations attempting to alter these statuses without court intervention are deemed invalid.
Summation
A judicial admission refers to a formal acknowledgment made by a party in the course of litigation, which is conclusive and does not require additional proof. Such admissions can occur through pleadings, pre-trial conferences, hearings, depositions, and other procedural stages.
Explicit Admissions
Clearly stated acknowledgments of fact made by a party during the trial or in pleadings.
Implied Admissions
These occur when a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, leading to automatic acceptance of the requested facts.
Judicial admissions are binding on the party that makes them, except in cases where the admission was made due to a palpable mistake or when it is proven that no such admission was made.
Admissions made during a trial are considered conclusive and do not require further evidence.
Pleadings as Evidence:
Statements in pleadings serve as evidence against the pleader, acknowledging the facts alleged. As per Jones, pleadings are more than mere admissions; they are conclusive and can influence subsequent proceedings.
Judicial Admission in Subsequent Cases:
Judicial admissions from previous cases may be admissible in subsequent litigation, regardless of whether the parties involved are the same. This principle applies to public officials as well, provided their admissions are made in their official capacity.
Request for Admission:
Under Section 1, Rule 26 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may request admissions, which, if unresponded to, become implied admissions. Responses must be made within 15 days.
Admissions made are effective only for the pending action and cannot be used against the party in other proceedings. However, courts may allow withdrawal or amendment of admissions under specific conditions.
Failure to comply with discovery rules may lead to the establishment of the requested matters as true, reinforcing the importance of adherence to procedural requirements.
Effect of an amended pleading
Amendment
It is the correction of errors or mistakes in pleadings before the court.
It can rectify errors regarding the name of a party or inadequate averments, focusing on the actual merits rather than technicalities.
Upon amendment (as a matter of right or with leave of court), the amended pleading supersedes the original, which no longer forms part of the record.
Parties can amend their own pleadings but cannot amend those of their opponents.
An amendment serves to promote justice, not as a reward for neglect or indifference.
Original pleadings are considered obliterated by the amendment; however, admissions in superseded pleadings can still be received as evidence against the pleader.
Admissions in superseded pleadings:
May be used as evidence against the pleader.
Claims or defenses not incorporated into the amended pleading are considered waived.
If a pleading has been superseded or withdrawn, its statements are no longer judicial admissions but can be used as extrajudicial admissions if formally introduced as evidence.
Judicial vs. Extrajudicial Admissions
Judicial Admissions
Statements that are conclusive and do not require proof.
Extrajudicial Admissions
Statements made outside a judicial context that may still be relevant but do not have the same binding nature.
Use of Superseded Pleadings
Statements from original pleadings that are not offered as evidence will not be considered admissions.
Some jurisdictions may rule that extrajudicial admissions from withdrawn pleadings are not admissible against a co-party.
Section 4, Rule 129 states that admissions, whether oral or written, made during proceedings are binding and do not require proof unless proven to be made through palpable error or if the admission was not actually made.
Presumption
A presumption is an inference regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact that courts can draw from the proof of other facts, as covered in Sections 2 and 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
While presumptions can displace evidence, the party asserting a presumption must provide evidence supporting the presumption's basis, unlike judicial notice and judicial admissions.
Presumptions serve as aids to reasoning and argumentation, allowing certain matters to be assumed as true for the purpose of inquiry.
They may be based on general experience, probability, policy, or convenience, and they operate in advance of or irrespective of argument or evidence.
A presumption establishes a rule of law mandating courts to draw a specific inference from a particular fact or evidence unless disproven.
A fact can be a basis for an inference only if the inference is the most probable and natural explanation for that fact, compared to any other explanations.
Presumptions yield when contradicted by clear and convincing evidence.
Republic v. Sereno:
Defined a presumption as an inference of an unknown fact based on its usual connection with known facts or through conjecture based on past experience.
Presumptions relieve the party benefiting from the presumption of the burden of proof, shifting that burden to the opposing party.
Reasons for Presumptions
Burden of Proof
Presumptions help courts determine which party should carry the burden of proof.
An example is the constitutional presumption of innocence, which requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Necessity and Convenience
Presumptions can be utilized when facts are difficult to prove or unavailable, preventing potential miscarriages of justice.
For instance, when a receipt for later payments is produced, it may be presumed that prior payments were also made, relieving the tenant or buyer of the duty to prove past payments.
Specific Rules and Limitations
Section 17 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC states that public officials cannot invoke the presumption of regularly performed official duty to evade responsibility.
According to Rules 301 to 302 of the 2018 Federal Rules of Evidence, presumptions are limited to civil cases and do not apply in criminal cases.
In criminal law, due process prevents presumptions from negating the state's burden of proving each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Comments
Post a Comment