phBar.org (Bar Exams Forum-Philippines)

VIII.

Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol's father, Ramil, approached Artemon, the victim's father, during the preliminary investigation and offered P1 Million to Artemon to settle the case. Artemon refused the offer.

a) During trial, the prosecution presented Artemon to testify on Ramil's offer and thereby establish an implied admission of guilt. Is Ramil's offer to settle admissible in evidence? (3%)

b) During the pre-trial, Bembol personally offered to settle the case for P1 Million to the private prosecutor, who immediately put the offer on record in the presence of the trial judge. Is Bembol's offer a judicial admission of his guilt? (3%)

Let me try, neither suggested nor alternative.

A.
No. Ramil's offer to settle is inadmissible in evidence because of filial privilege. Under this, no person may be compelled to testify against his descendant.

B.
Yes, as a rule, criminal cases can not be subject to compromise, however, an offer to compromise by the accused may used as an evidence for implied admission of his guilt.

A Judicial Admission of Guilt is a form of confession made either during arraignment or during trial. It must be an express admission, not implied.

it is not judicial admission. it can be offered as extrajudicial which need to be offered and proved

a. no it is not admissible because the offer was made by the father of the accused and not by the accused himself.

b. yes it is admissible. an offer on compromise, except on cases allowed by law, may be admitted as an implied admission of guilt

+++++++++++++++

a. no, it is not. by virtue of res ipsa loquitor. basta yun na yun..

b. wahhhhhhhhhhh ... mali ata ako dito.. i answered no. because bembol did not confess it in open court or when he is being asked. ganun kasi ang concept of judicial admission eh. when somebody testified or when he testified.. kaso mo.. wahhhhhhhh di ko ata napansin.. they are in pre-trial already... pero parang mali pa rin yung ginawa nung private prosecutor. in the first place.. bat yung private prosecutor ang gagawa nun.. di ba dapat ang control should be the public prosecutor and secondly, the question is...

judicial admission of guilt.. hindi naman implied admission of his guilt eh.. the two things are really different.

I agree and answered the same...

My bar answer:
a.no, although an offer to settle is an implied admission of guilt, the accused was not aware of the offer thus would not be admissible.

b. No, because for stipulation of facts during pre-trial be binding upon the accused, it must be duly signed by the accused and his counsel.

a. No. It was the father, not the accused who offered to settle. There was no principal-agent relationship established in the facts. The acts or omissions of a person does not bind third parties, except as provided by the rules on evidence.

b. No. It is not a judicial admission. To be such, it must be in the pleadings or in writing signed by both accused and counsel.

G.R. No. 108028 July 30, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CRISTINA M HERNANDEZ, accused-appellant

The collorally issue left for the determination of this Court is whether or not Section 4 of Rule 118?requiring an agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference to be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel before the same may be used in evidence against the accused-equally applies to a stipulation of facts made during trial. We resolved this issue in the negative.

b) My answer was "Yes, Bembol's offer is an admission of guilt; what with the admission being made during pre-trial which is considered a part of the trial proper........"

++++++++++++

the jurisprudence is well taken. but the fact remains that "he personally offered to the private prosecutor..." and am not really sure about the date of the jurisprudence. it was decided on 96. crim pro was revised by how many times. i am sure that the current trend now is there must be signature of the accused and the lawyer before the stipulations entered in the pre trial can be admitted and make part of the record of the case.

My answers to both questions is a no.

For the 1st question, the father's action cannot be taken against the accused. It is not correct to pressume that there was already admission. Admission must be done by the party involved in a case and it must be clear and unequivocal.

To the second question, it is again a no. The accused merely offered to settle the case. A mere offer to settle does not imply that the accused admitted his guilt in open court. Then again, an admission must be clear and unequivocal.

1)Please look at People vs Yparraguire (July 5, 2000) where the parent's offer of compromise is considered as an admission of guilt. And People vs Gaudia (February 24, 2004).

2) Not admissible.
Not made in writing during pre-trial. Also, not signed by accused and counsel.

a.) Ramil's offer to settle is inadmissible in evidence. The principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet is applicable in this case. (Rule 130, Sec. 28). The actions of his parents cannot prejudice the accused since he was not a party to the said conversation, nor was it shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise.