JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

TOPIC: Matters that do not need to be proven by evidence.

Judicial Admissions

Rule: An admission verbal or written made by a party in the course of the proceeding in
the same case does not require proof.
Q: What would make it a judicial admission?
A: They should have been made in the course of the proceedings and they
can only be used in that pending action.

Definition: The admission should have been made by the person in the course of the
proceedings before the court.

Open Court Proceedings (Open to the public)

Opposite: In chambers (Only the counsel and the party may confront or may
be confronted the judge but in chambers to the exclusion of the
public).

Q: Why is the admission made by counsel in the course of the trial would bind
the client even if the client did not sign? Unlike in the admissions made
during the pretrial where we said that the party as well as the counsel
should sign the written admissions?

Q: Why is a judicial admission during the pretrial be made in writing and

singed by the parties and the counsels?

 During the pretrial, a party would make a proposal and then the other
party has the option to either admit or deny the proposal. “e, pag sa
open court the other party cannot do anything if the counsel will just
admit.”
 During pretrial, the most important signature that we should find in the
pretrial order should be the signature of the parties.
 All agreements (pretrial agreement) or admissions must be made or
entered during the pretrial conference shall be reduced in writing and
signed by the accused and the counsel; otherwise, it would be against
the accused.

A: “Pretrial Agreement,” even if there is an admission, it is in the nature of an

agreement, “kas inga d ba, one party will make a proposal and then the
other one will either deny or admit, if he admits then there is an
agreement, kya nga stipulation, d ba?”
Q: So what do we know about an agreement?
A: It must be in writing and signed by both parties.
 “Pag sa admission, wala un, d naman hinihingi un, it does not
come from the other party to be agreed upon by the other,
parang moto proprio dba na i-admit na lang ng isan party or the
counsel, so that will be an admission which does not need to be
placed in writing and then signed by the parties.”
 During the pretrial, what we have basically are agreements, the
term that we used there are proposals for stipulations, because
 the parties will have to agree, if they don’t agree, then that will
not be considered as an admission.
 “wala po sa rule ang nagsabe na, pag admission in open court
ay dapat in writing and pimahan ng parties. But we have a
specific provision stating that, if it is an agreement during the
pretrial, it has to be in writing and signed by the parties and
counsels. So why does it need to be in writing and signed by the
parties? Because the rules says so. If it is specifically provided
in the rules, you follow, if it is not specifically prohibited in the
rules, you can do that.”

Q: What is the effect of an admission made by a party in:

a. his judicial affidavit which is already part of the record of the case if he
did not testify?
 That is why in the definition of a judicial admission, we should
take note of the key words, the admission should have been
made in the course of the proceeding.
 In # 6 letter a, you have a judicial affidavit which was attached
to the record, but then the affiant did not testify. So was the
judicial affidavit/admission made during the course of the
proceeding?
 As a rule, when we go to documentary evidence and
testimonial evidence, if you have an affidavit, but it was
not identified by the affiant, the contents will be mere
hearsay, so we cannot actually use that in evidence.
 So here, if have a judicial affidavit which was not testified
on, even if it is in the record of the case, still the court
cannot admit that or that could not be considered as
judicial admission. But it may still be proven to be an
extrajudicial admission. Because it was not used during
the proceedings then we consider that as an extrajudicial
admission.
 So what is the difference between judicial admission and
extrajudicial admission?
 If it’s an extrajudicial admission you have to prove
it as a fact, you have to present evidence; but if
it’s a judicial affidavit, you don’t need to present
evidence.
b. His pleading if the same was thereafter amended?
 Pleading that was later on amended, so we said last meeting
that if you amend the pleading, the new pleading will be
deemed to supersede the original pleading. Then we there a
proviso which says, the admissions made in the original
pleading will still bind the party.
 The admission may be taken against the pleader, but it is no
longer a judicial admission.
 Why? It was withdrawn so it was not used in the course
of the proceedings. But it may be an extrajudicial
admission and you have to prove it with evidence.

c. His pleading which he later withdrew?

Page 2 of 5
d. His sworn statement after a motion to discharge him as a state
witness is denied?
 If you want to discharge a person to become a state witness
together with your motion for the discharge of that person/of the
accused. You should attach his sworn statement already, so
that the court will determine if his testimony is material to the
case.
 What happens if he was not discharged as a state
witness and he made some admissions in his sworn
statement?
 As stated in Sec. 17, Rule 119 of the rules of
court; Evidence adduced in support of the
discharge shall automatically form part of the trial
and if the court deny the motion from the
discharge of the accused as state witness, then,
his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in
evidence.

e. His sworn statement as a state witness after he refused to testify?

 He was discharged, but then he refused to testify? Will it be the
same? He made some admissions in the worn statement but
then he refused to testify, will they be considered as judicial
admissions so that we don’t need to present evidence to prove
the voluntariness of the admission?
 The testimony of the person who was discharged as a
witness because he did not testify, it was used to justify
the discharged. “kc kanina, ang sinabi nyo, the
admissions will not be considered as judicial admisions,
in fact they are inadmissible. Admissions made in the
sworn statement would be inadmissible if the witness
was not discharged. But if he was discharged but he
willfully refused not to testify, nagamit na ung sworn
statement nya eh, to prove that he should be discharged
as a state witness, since the sworn statement was made
during the course of the proceedings, then that would
now be considered the admissions made in the sworn
statement would now be judicial admissions, even if he
refused, they can still be taken against him without any
proof.”

f. Admissions made in the discovery processes?

 Modes of discovery, Rule 126, admissions made by an adverse
party. The rule there is the admission can only be made or can
only be used in the action, and it cannot be used against
him/her in another action.

Page 3 of 5
During the trial, criminal or civil, most specially if the criminal actions are pending before the
MTC, you have a list of actions where compromise agreements are allowed on the civil
aspects of the case.

Q: When may an offer of compromise be considered an admission?

 If one of the parties would offer a compromise, would that be considered an
admission against him? So you make a distinction between civil actions and
criminal actions.

8. How may a judicial admission be contradicted?

 Sec. 4, Rule 129: The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Answer to
the question, how are you going to refute ung judicial admission.

9. Who may contradict a judicial admission?

 It may be contradicted by:
a. Person who made the admission;
b. Any person/party who is prejudiced or stands to be prejudiced by
the judicial admission (i.e. Sec. 30-31, Rule 130).
10. May the admission of one accused on the witness stand be taken against his co-
accused?
 As a general rule, Any admission made by one cannot bind/prejudice the other;
unless, they are co-partner or agent; co-conspirator; or privies. But the relationship
should be proven by evidence aliunde (not the testimony or admission mismo ng
witness).
11. May an admission in a counter-affidavit submitted during a preliminary investigation and
which is attached to the record be admitted in evidence?
 In evidence, whenever you are asked a question na the last part of which is “is the
evidence admissible or will you admit that in evidence, whenever the question
asked about the admissibility of the evidence,” all you have to do is to look at the
two requisites of admissibility, that is how you should answer this question, so 1.
Is it admissible, Is it relevant to the issue 2. Is it competent.
 For this number, we have a counter affidavit which was submitted by the accused
to the prosecutor during a preliminary investigation. It was attached to the
information when it was filed but it was not used. Will this counter affidavit be
admissible?
 How do you approach this question? Sabi ko ng kanina, just look at the
requisites of the admissibility, Siguro it does not talked about relevance.
This came from a case, the accused here questioned the use of the
counter affidavit against him and he said that, “when he submitted the
counter affidavit, he was not assisted by counsel,” so it was in the course
of a preliminary investigation, sabi nya parang custodial investigation
cguro ang tingin nya. Sabi nya, “the admission is not admissible” Why?
Because it is prohibited, pag sa custodial investigation, the
accused/respondent must be assisted by a counsel, otherwise the
admissions made will not be admissible. So, we are talking about the
competence of the evidence.
 So, and sagot sa # 11, Yes, In an admission in a counter affidavit
submitted during a preliminary investigation may be admitted in evidence.
It one of the cases, it was held that, “A counter affidavit voluntary
presented by the accused during the preliminary investigation, even if

Page 4 of 5
 without the assistance of a counsel may be used against the affiant.”
Why? Because preliminary investigation is not custodial investigation.

12. What is the effect of the retraction or recantation of a witness as to admissions

already made?
 Recantation-Renouncing of an early statement/testimonies.
 What if there was an admission an admission that was made by the witness in
testimony?... A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier
declaration… Necessary means, it can cancel… yes, but it was also stated
stat, “A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and
disregarded lightly.” Ok, we talking about testimony in general, how about an
admission that was made in the course of the testimony?... May it also be
disregarded if we comply with the requisites?
 If there is a recantation by a witness, the original testimony may be
disregarded. That is the effect of a recantation, but you have to satisfy certain
requisites… What if there is an admission made by that witness against
himself, d ba that’s the nature of an admission, it is against his interest.. So
what if there was an admission that was made? Will it also be disregarded if
all the requisites of a valid recantation will be met?... Kasama xa sa original
testimony na madidisregard?... Will the original testimony will be disregarded
in its entirety including the admission that were already made?
 Again you go back to go back to the meaning of a judicial admission…
So, you have a testimony, and there is have a recantation, if the
recantation is valid, the testimony will be disregarded?
 Admission made in the testimony will still be considered against
the witness; however,……

4th instance when we do not need evidence, because what we want to prove, is already
there, JUDICIAL CONFESSION, what is the difference between an admission and
confession?... both of them should have been made during the course of the proceeding…

Confession-An act of confession or declaration acknowledging or admitting the quilt.

Admission-A declaration or acknowledgment of some facts or circumstances which do not
pertain to the guilt of a person or accused.

When do we have a judicial confession in criminal actions?

 During arraignment when the accused enters his plea. So, when he enters a plea
of guilty, then that is a confession?... Generally, but we have exception, when he
enters an improvident plea of guilty… So that is how you contradict your plea of
guilt, d ba?... yes… Of course if the plea will later proven to be improvident, then
that is no longer a confession… so that is not an exemption?... yes, it’s a rule.
 What about in a civil action, do we apply the concept of judicial confessions?... so if
the accused interposes self-defense, what is he making, a confession or an
admission? It is an admission because he admitted that he committed a crime.
 When you say you admit the offense, it means that you are admitting all the
elements including the intent... if it is self-defense, the only thing that the
accused is admitting is the commission of the fact but not the criminal
intent… So that is not a confession but merely an admission.

Page 5 of 5