Jamaica Bless A.

Adrias BS CRIM 3-C

CLJ5 – EVIDENCE

1. Date of effectivity of Revised Penal Rules on Evidence

Answer: The Revised Rules on Evidence in the Philippines took effect on July 1, 1989.
However, there have been amendments to these rules since then. The most recent amendments
took effect on May 1, 2020.

2. Define admissions
Answer: Admission is the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him or her.

3. Define confessions
Answer: Confession, the declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him or
her.

4. Distinguish admissions from confessions

Answer: Admissions is a clear, categorical, and voluntary declaration on a matter of fact that is
adverse to the interest of the declarant. Otherwise put, for a declaration to be considered an
admission: (1) it must be on a matter of fact; (2) it is adverse or contrary to the interests of the
declarant; (3) it only has one meaning; and (4) it was not forced, threatened, or intimidated out of
the declarant.

A confession is a specific admission as to the guilt of an accused. Accused persons make a

declaration of guilt when they positively and expressly acknowledge that they performed the acts
or omissions that they are charged for. The declaration must be done orally in writing
(expressed) and cannot be implied. The acts or omissions that the accused person say they did
may constitute the offense itself or may constitute another offense that is included in the offense
charged.

5. Discuss offer of compromise in criminal cases as admission of guilt

Answer: In criminal cases, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence
as an implied of guilt.

Example: If the complainant testified that during the pendency of the rape case, the accused
talked to her for the purpose of setting the case purposely to escape prosecution and possible
conviction for the crime charged and was not disputed, such act of the accused is considered as
an implied admission of guilt.
6. State the kinds of admission
Answer:

 Formal Admissions: These are made through written agreements or requests.

 Judicial Admissions: These are made in court documents or during hearings.
 Informal Admissions: These are made outside of court, such as in conversations or
documents.

7. Discuss offer of compromise in criminal cases as admission of guilt in a particular

compromise

Answer: In criminal cases, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt.

8. Give two (2) examples when there is non admission of guilt in a particular compromise

Answer: Two Examples of Non-Admission of Guilt in a Compromise

1. Civil Dispute Settlement: In a civil dispute, such as a personal injury or contract breach
case, parties may agree to settle the matter out of court. This settlement often involves a
payment from one party to the other, but it does not necessarily imply that either party is
admitting wrongdoing. The settlement may be based on factors like the strength of the
evidence, the potential costs of litigation, and the desire to avoid uncertainty.
2. Insurance Claims: When a person files an insurance claim, such as for property damage
or personal injury, the insurance company may offer a settlement to resolve the claim.
This settlement does not mean that the insurance company is admitting fault or liability.
It may be a strategic decision to avoid litigation and potential legal costs.

9. Define presumptions
Answer: While judicial notice pertains to the court’s acceptance of facts absent evidence, legal
presumptions pertain to the conclusions made by the courts based upon a set of a proven facts
and the application of logical reasoning.

10. State the kinds of presumptions

Answer: Conclusive presumptions, Disputable presumptions, No presumption of legitimacy or
illegitimacy, Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings, Presumption against an accused in
criminal cases, Presumption of Innocence, Presumption of Unlawful Intent, Presumption of
Willful Suppression of Evidence, Presumption that Possessor of the Thing, is the Taker of the
Thing, Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties, Presumption of Death.
11. Discuss conclusive presumptions (Section 2, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Answer: Conclusive Presumptions – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Wherever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission,, intentionally and
deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she
cannot, in any ligitation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted tofalsify it
and

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at thetime of
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

12. Discuss disputable presumptions

Answer: Disputable presumptions are legal rules that assume a fact to be true until proven
otherwise, but can be challenged and overturned with sufficient evidence. These presumptions
are often based on common sense, experience, or statutory provisions.

13. Discuss the following presumptions:

a) Presumption of Innocence
b) Presumption of unlawful detainer
c) Presumption of willful suppression of evidence
d) Presumption that possessor of the thing is the taker of the thing
e) Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
f) Presumption of death

Answer:
a) Presumption of Innocence

All persons are presumed innocent until their guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the burden to prove that an accused is guilty rests on the prosecution. Before a
judgement on the merits of the case which finds that the accused indeed committed the acts or
omissions he or she was charged with, the innocence of the accused is upheld.

b) Presumption of Unlawful detainer

Presumption of Unlawful Detainer is a legal principle that, under certain circumstances,

assumes that a person is unlawfully detaining property without the rightful owner's consent. This
presumption can be a powerful tool in legal proceedings, but it's important to understand the
conditions and potential challenges associated with it.

c) Presumption of Willful Suppression of Evidence

The failure to produce a piece of evidence gives rise to the risk of a presumption of willful
suppression of evidence, which may lead to the conclusion that the evidence will be adverse to
the interest of the party who is suppressing it. For instance, a poseur buyer is an indispensable
witness in a buy-bust drug case when the arresting officers have no personal knowledge of the
fact that an illegal drug transaction transpired between the poseur buyer and the accused. This
may be the case if: (1) there is no person other than the poseur buyer who witnessed the drug
transaction; (2) there is no explanation for the nonappearance of the poseur-buyer did not hear
the conversation between the pusher and the poseur buyer; and (4) the accused vehemently
denies selling any prohibited drugs coupled with the inconsistent testimonies of the arresting
officers or coupled with the possibility that there exist reasons to believe that the arresting
officers had motives to testify falsely against the accused. If the poseur buyer is not presented as
a witness, their nonappearance will give rise to the presumption of willful suppression of
evidence against the prosecution.

d) Presumption that possessor of the thing is the taker of the thing

This presumption applies to cases where such possession of thing cannot be properly explained
or that the offered explanation is rendered unbelievable in view of an existing evidence
inconsistent with the explanation.

e) Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties

Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an

existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a
procedure in the performance thereof. This means that when there are no irregularities in the
performance of official duty, officers are presumed to have performed the duty according to the
applicable rules and regulations. Otherwise, when there is a deviation from the standard
procedure, the presumption applies. For instance, in drug cases, the presumption or regularity
will not apply if the buy-bust team blatantly disregarded the established procedures under
Section 21 of RA 9165.

f) Presumption of Death

If a person has been missing for a number of years and his or her whereabouts are unknown, and
despite earnest efforts to locate the missing person, the same is futile, then the person is
presumed dead. This presumption under the 2019 Rules on Evidence was taken from Articles
390 and 391 of the New Civil Code, for which there is no need to go to court to declare a person
presumptively dead.

But if the presumption is for the purpose or remarriage, a court declaration of presumptive
death of the spouse who has been missing for four or seven years, as the case may be, is needed.