Admission / Party admissions

Notes
1. An act, declaration or omission of a party may be given as evidence against
him
2. This is an extrajudicial admission
3. It is made by a party the party himself
4. It is given as an evidence against him, not for him since that would be in the
nature of self serving testimony and therefore hearsay
5. The declaration need not be against the partys interest
6. So long as the evidence is going to be used against the party, it is an
admission and therefore admissible against the party
7. This is different from declaration against interest
8. In admission, there is no requirement that the declaration be against the
partys interest

Declaration against the interest

1. I
2. T
3. C- ontrary or so far contrary to the declarants own interest that a reasonable
person would not have made it if it were not true

Admission
Notes
1. A judicial admission must be made in the course of the proceeding in the
same case

Double or multiple hearsay (part 2-2) 17:21

Notes
1. Involves a situation where there are two or more levels of hearsay
2. How to spot double hearsay?
There are two declarants
3. Usually happens in business records or official records

4. If the one making the entry is not from his personal knowledge, but to
knowledge supplied to him by another person, it would not be an exception to
the hearsay rule
5. The proponent may avail the so called double hearsay
6. If each level of hearsay may be justified by the hearsay exception or hearsay
exclusion, then we admit the evidence even if it involves two levels of
hearsay just as long each level of hearsay is justified by a hearsay exclusion
or exception
7. Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if
each level of hearsay conforms with an exception to (or exclusion from) the
hearsay
8. Example:
D2 wrote what D1 said in his police report?
There are two declarants.
Both of them are not presented in court
What was only presented is a police report
May the court admit the police report over the objection
DYING DECLARATION - justified
OFFICIAL ENTRIES - justified
Although it is double hearsay, each level of hearsay is justified by an
exclusion to the hearsay
Thus, the police report may be admitted

9. The hotel security officer

There is double hearsay situation
DYING DECLARATION BUSINESS ENTRIES In business entries, it is required that the declarant be dead or unavailable to
testify
Each level being justified, then it is admissible

10.May the fiscal use in court the testimony of Pedro?

Here, there are two declarants
The testimony of Jose may be justified under res gestae, but the second layer
cannot be justified by any exclusion
The second declarant Atty Cruz was not presented in court

Another view is that since he is the accused anything he says is excluded

from the hearsay rule
Another is that Jose can object on the ground of attorney client relationship

Hearsay
1. If not timely objected to is admissioble
2. If so admitted, it has probative value and should be given the weight it
deserves on a case to case basis
3. A lot of hearsay is relevant
4. The reason for excluding hearsay is that the other party is deprived of the
opportunity to cross examine the declarant
5. Hearsay does not deal with relevance but with exclusion
6. Hearsay is relevant
7. It is up to the discretion of the court to assign the probative value of a
hearsay on a case to case basis
8. Hearsay must be objected to, otherwise the court may give it a probative
value, but it is upon the court

Opinion Rule
1. The only business of the witness is to convey the facts to the court, it is the
court who would draw inference
2. The drawing of inference on facts is the business of the court
3. But if the court will be assisted by the opinion of an expert witness, then his
opinion may be admissible
4. If it is an opinion of a layman, it is not admissible
Lay Opinion
1. Even if it is not an expert opinion, but it is a lay opinion of H-I-S
Handwriting
Identity
Sanity

Of a person of whom the witness is familiar with

Or a persons short hand opinion of C-A-B-E
Conditon
Appearance
Behavior
Emotion
Then his opinion may be admitted as evidence

Expert Opinion
1. An expert is one who has a special knowledge, skill, experience or training
(special T-E-K-S)
2. If it is shown that he possessed this, his opinion may be received in evidence
3. Expert witness is distinguished from a lay witness in that the former must be
qualified. The lay witness is presumed to be competent
Expert witness must show that he possess special TEKS before he is allowed
to testify
Objection as to failure to qualify should be timely raised; otherwise it is
deemed waived
4. A witness is presumed qualified. The one who alleges that the witness is not
qualified must show that he is not qualified
5. But the expert witness needs to be qualified
6. Skill when it comes to expert witness does not mean formal education
Experience may do
A plumber or carpenter may have no formal education but may be considered
as an expert witness
But his special TEKS must be shown before he may be allowed to be an
expert witness
Failure to object that the witness is not qualified is deemed waiver
Objection must be made at the time the witness was not qualified

7. Parties may stipulate on the qualifications of an expert witness. The effect is

that there is no more objection from the prosecution or defense
8. Another distinction between EW and LW is that the former can testify on
hypothetical or assumed facts
This cannot be done by a layman witness
The reason it is allowed to an expert witness is that he is testifying about his
opinion on a matter requiring his special TEKS
So it is perfectly alright if the EW will testify on an assumed facts
For instance, the psychologist in an annulment case can testify on the
psychological incapacity of the other spouse even if he was not able to
personally interviewed him or her
Because he can just rely on the interviews of other person or on a
hypothetical or assumed facts

Marriage nullity cases

1. The psychological incapacity must be proved by a qualified psychiatrist or
clinical psychologist
2. Actual medical examination of the respondent is not an indispensable
requirement
The reason for that is normally the respondent would refuse the offer to be
interviewed by the psychologist of the plaintiff
So it is alright for the psychologist to rely on the interview of other persons

Case: Camacho Reyes

Facts
1. Psychologist prepared a report stating that the respondent is suffering from
psychological incapacity
2. But the psychologist was not able to interview the respondent
3. Can the report of the psychologist be considered as hearsay
SC
1. No. nothing is wrong with that

It is not hearsay. Besides, the psychologist is in court testifying on his

psychological report
If there is a report but the psychologist was not presented, then that would
be hearsay
Even if the psychologist testified based on the report of other psychologist or
from observation of persons familiar with the respondent, that is all right
since he is an expert witness and can rely on assumed facts

Case: Dela Llana

Facts
1.
2.
3.
4.

A neurologist was riding in his car when his car was hit by truck from the back
She had paralysis in her arm as a result of the accident
She testified that the injury she sustained was a result of the collision
Is her opinion admissible?

SC
No, since he was not presented as an expert witness. She was just called to
the stand as an ordinary lay witness
Notwithstanding the fact that she is a neurologist, her opinion would not be
admissible

Lay hand or short hand opinion of H-I-S

Handwriting
Identity
Sanity
Of which the witness is familiar with
A lay witness can testify on the handwriting
If fact, the opinion of a lay witness as to the handwriting is even stronger that
the expert witness, if the layman has intimate familiarity with the handwriting
of a person

Shorthand opinion or impression for C-A-B-E

Condition
Appearance
Behavior
Emotion
A witness need not be an expert to form opinion on these matters
Short hand impression for P-L-S
Physical dimension
Lighting
Speed
Distance
These are acceptable as exemption for the opinion rule
They are admissible as evidence even if opinions

Character evidence - Part 2-4 (notes 17:14)

Reputation