Admission by a third party | Admissions and Confessions | Testimonial Evidence (RULE 130) | EVIDENCE

ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY
(Under Philippine Remedial Law, particularly Rule 130 of the Rules of Court on Evidence)

I. OVERVIEW

An admission is a statement—oral or written—acknowledging certain facts relevant to a judicial proceeding. Under Philippine law, admissions are generally classified as either (a) judicial admissions (those made in the course of the same proceeding, which do not require proof and cannot be contradicted absent leave of court), or (b) extrajudicial admissions (those made out of court, which are subject to rules on relevance, form, and admissibility). A confession, on the other hand, is a declaration acknowledging guilt in a criminal case.

When we speak of an “admission by a third party,” we refer to a statement made not by a party to the case but by someone else who is not directly litigating in that proceeding. The general rule is that the admissions of strangers to a case are not binding upon the parties, because of the principle that one cannot be prejudiced by the mere statements of another who has no legal authority to speak on one’s behalf.

However, there are specific exceptions and contexts under Philippine jurisprudence and the Rules of Court where third-party admissions may become admissible or even binding, depending on the relationship of the third party to the litigants and the purpose for which the statement is offered. Below is a comprehensive guide.

II. LEGAL BASES

  1. Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence (as amended):

    • Section 26 (formerly §26 under the old Rules): This provision deals with the admissions of a party, but in subsequent sections and case law, the principle of admissions extends to statements made by authorized representatives, partners, agents, co-conspirators, and those in privity with the party.

  2. Doctrine of Agency, Partnership, and Privity:

    • Statements made by a partner, agent, or one in privity with a party may be considered admissions binding on the principal or co-partners, if made within the scope of authority or during the existence of the partnership or agency and concerning matters within their competence or authority.

  3. Relevant Jurisprudence:

    • People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437 (1997): Discusses confessions but also touches on extrajudicial statements relative to admissions.
    • People v. Lamsing, G.R. No. L-22384 (1967): Addresses extrajudicial statements of conspirators.
    • Various rulings clarifying that an admission by one co-defendant or third party is generally not admissible against other defendants unless there is a conspiracy or agency relationship.

III. GENERAL RULE: THIRD-PARTY STATEMENTS ARE HEARSAY

Under the hearsay rule, any out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted is inadmissible unless it falls under a recognized exception. An admission by a third party is typically out-of-court and is offered to prove the fact asserted in that statement; hence, it is presumptively hearsay.

The immediate consequence of this classification is that “admissions by strangers” to the litigation are not ordinarily binding upon the parties, nor are they admissible to prove the truth of what was stated—unless they fit into one of the exceptions set out in the Rules of Court or recognized in jurisprudence.

IV. EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE

Below are scenarios in which a third-party admission may be considered admissible and, to some extent, binding or persuasive:

  1. Admission by a Conspirator

    • Applicable Rule: An act or declaration made by a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be used against the other conspirators.
    • Rationale: Co-conspirators are deemed agents of one another in carrying out the crime or unlawful act, and their statements about the enterprise (while it is ongoing) are treated as admissions against all.

  2. Admission by a Partner or Agent

    • Applicable Rule: A statement made by a partner concerning partnership affairs or by an agent concerning a matter within the scope of the agency can bind the principal or co-partners.
    • Requirements:
      • Existence of the relationship of partnership or agency;
      • The statement pertains to a matter within the scope of the relationship;
      • The statement was made during the subsistence of that relationship.

  3. Admission by a Privy (Privity in Estate, Privity in Contract)

    • If there is privity of estate (e.g., successor-in-interest, heirs) or privity in contract (e.g., assignment of a right or obligation), the admissions of a predecessor or assignor may be used against the successor or assignee.
    • Rationale: The law imposes the predecessor’s admissions upon the successor in interest because the latter steps into the shoes of the former.

  4. Statement Against Interest (Rule 130, Section 39)

    • While not strictly labeled as “admission by a third party,” a statement against interest by an unavailable declarant can be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
    • Requirements:
      • The declarant must be unavailable to testify (e.g., deceased, mentally incompetent, absent, etc.).
      • At the time the statement was made, it was so far contrary to the declarant’s own pecuniary or proprietary interest that a reasonable person would not have made it unless believing it to be true.
    • This can be relevant if the third party’s declaration is directly adverse to his/her own interest, thereby lending credibility to the statement.

  5. Admission Through Adoptive Acts

    • A third party makes a statement in the presence of the party, and the party adopts or acquiesces to that statement under circumstances that would normally call for a denial if the statement were untrue.
    • In some jurisdictions recognized as “adoptive admission.” Under Philippine law, this is akin to the concept that silence may be an implied admission where a party would ordinarily be expected to speak out if the statement were false, provided certain foundational requirements are met (e.g., they heard and understood the statement, had an opportunity to deny, and the situation called for a reply).

V. ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT

  1. Foundation for Admissibility

    • The proponent of the evidence must demonstrate (a) the proper relationship (agency, conspiracy, privity), (b) that the statement falls squarely within one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, and (c) relevance to the issues.

  2. Corroboration

    • Courts typically require corroborating evidence to give weight to an admission by a third party. Where possible, the admission should not stand alone in proving a crucial fact, especially in serious matters such as criminal liability.

  3. Distinction from Confessions

    • A confession is a direct acknowledgement of guilt by the accused in a criminal case. In contrast, an admission may only involve collateral facts that indirectly bear on liability.
    • A third party’s “confession” to a crime for which another is charged is still subject to the hearsay rule. It can be introduced as a statement against penal interest, but the court will scrutinize it thoroughly and consider factors such as trustworthiness and the unavailability of the declarant.

  4. Weight of Third-Party Admissions

    • Even if admissible, a third-party admission’s probative value is often less than that of an admission by the party himself/herself.
    • Courts will consider the credibility of the declarant, the circumstances under which the statement was made, and the presence of other supporting or refuting evidence.

VI. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. How to Offer the Evidence

    • Typically, a statement of a third party is introduced through the testimony of a witness who heard the statement or through a properly authenticated written document.
    • The offering party must specify the exception to the hearsay rule being invoked.

  2. Objections and Counterarguments

    • The opposing party may raise an objection on the ground of hearsay, or argue that no recognized exception applies.
    • If the statement is offered under a recognized exception (e.g., co-conspirator statement, statement against interest), the opposing party may challenge the factual predicates of the exception (e.g., the existence of conspiracy, or the unavailability of the declarant).

  3. Burden of Proof

    • The burden lies on the proponent of the third-party admission to establish all the foundational requirements for admissibility.

VII. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  • Diligence in Presentation: A lawyer presenting a third-party admission must carefully ensure it falls under a legitimate hearsay exception and is not merely speculative or fabricated.
  • Candor to the Tribunal: Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers must not knowingly present false evidence. If a “third party admission” is suspect or obtained through unethical means, counsel must refrain from offering it or must disclose the pertinent circumstances to the court.
  • Protection of Client’s Interests vs. Ethical Duty: While a lawyer must zealously represent the client’s interest by seeking all possible exculpatory or advantageous evidence (including third-party admissions), such evidence must be relevant, reliable, and lawfully obtained.

VIII. PRACTICAL POINTERS FOR LAWYERS

  1. Investigate the Nature of the Relationship: If you intend to use a third-party admission, ascertain whether the declarant stands in a relationship of agency, partnership, co-conspiracy, or privity with the party.
  2. Establish Preliminary Facts: Lay the groundwork to show that the statement meets every element of the applicable hearsay exception.
  3. Document Everything: Keep precise records of when, where, and how the statement was made. If in writing, ensure the document’s authenticity can be established.
  4. Consider Corroboration: Bolster the admission with other pieces of evidence to enhance reliability and persuasiveness before the court.
  5. Anticipate Objections: Be prepared to refute hearsay objections by citing the relevant exceptions under Rule 130, as well as supportive case law.

IX. CONCLUSION

An admission by a third party generally does not bind or affect a party to the litigation due to the hearsay rule and the principle that one cannot be prejudiced by another’s statements without authority or legal relationship. Nonetheless, Philippine jurisprudence and the Rules of Court recognize clear exceptions—particularly in cases of agency, partnership, conspiracy, and privity—where such statements may be deemed admissible and, in some situations, attributable to a party.

To successfully introduce a third-party admission in court, counsel must (1) identify the appropriate hearsay exception, (2) satisfy all foundational requirements, and (3) prove the reliability of the statement. Properly utilized, admissions by third parties can be a powerful form of evidence—especially when corroborated and aligned with recognized evidentiary and ethical standards.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login