People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996
Uploaded by
JCPeople v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996
Uploaded by
JCJudicial Admissions
1. People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996
FACTS: Accused appellant met the private complainants introducing herself as the
general manager Philippine-Thai.
-The private complainant were promised to work abroad but they were ask to pay
placement and passport fees in the total amount of P22,500.00 per applicant, to be paid
in three installments, to wit: P1,500 on December 14, 1988, P10,000.00 on December
16, 1988, and P11,000.00 on December 22, 1988.
-When the complainants paid, they were issued receipts by the alleged treasurer Liza
Mendoza but after they paid for the entire amount, they were not able to leave abroad.
- The court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
recruitment committed in large scale
-The appellant argued that (1) the stipulation of facts was not tantamount to an
admission by the appellant of the fact of non-possession of the requisite authority or
license from the POEA, but was merely an admission that the Chief Licensing Officer of
the POEA, if presented in court, would testify to this fact, and (2) the stipulation of facts
is null and void for being contrary to law and public policy.
-Appellant posits the foregoing arguments to bolster her contention that the stipulation
of facts did not relieve the prosecution of its duty to present evidence to prove all the
elements of the crime charged to the end that the guilt of the accused may be proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
-And she argued further that the admission by the POEA chief licensing officer here
was no judicial admission of the fact of non-possession of a license/authority but rather
a mere admission that the witness, if presented, would testify to such fact.
ISSUE: 1.whether or not A stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution and
defense counsel is a jucial admission binding his client?
HELD: YES "judicial admission are frequently those of counsel or of the attorney of
record, who is, for the purpose of the trial, the agent of his client. When such
admissions are made . . . for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some fact, . . . they
bind the client, whether made during, or even after, the trial."
In this case the stipulation of facts proposed during trial by prosecution and admitted by
defense counsel is tantamount to a judicial admission by the appellant of the facts
stipulated on. Controlling, therefore, is Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court which
provides that:
An admission, verbal or written, made by a 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 no such admission was made.
2. Whether or not the court is not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents
of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court?
HELD: Yes as a general rule, but it is subject to exception;
In the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may
properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case filed in its archives as read
into the records of a case pending before it, when with the knowledge of the opposing
party, reference is made to it, by name and number or in some other manner by which it
is sufficiently designated
And even assuming that judicial notice is misplace it will not affect the prosecution
because the case is not base to on the existence of another illegal recruitment case
filed against appellant by a different group of complainants, but on the overwhelming
evidence against her in the instant case.
3. Whether of not denials of the accused may be considered as evidence?
HELD: NO. denials if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative,
self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater
evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters
In this case, she did not merely deny, but likewise raised as an affirmative defense her
appointment as mere nominee-president of Philippine-Thai is a futile attempt at
exculpating herself and is of no consequence whatsoever when weighed against the
positive declarations of witnesses that it was the appellant who executed the acts of
illegal recruitment as complained of.
