evidence by francisco rule 129

7/22/2019 EVIDENCE by Francisco Rule 129

1/18

SEC. 1, RULE 129 }IVIDENCEWhere proffered evidence is of substantial probative value, ancl willnct tend to prejudice or confuse the fact-finders, all doubt should beresolved in favor of admissibility.rt

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVEDRULE 129Section 1. Judicial notiae, when ntandatory. - A court shall takejudicial notice, rvithout the introduction of evidence, the existence andtenitorial extent of states, their political history, forms of governmentand symbols of nationality, the larv of nations, the admiralty and maritimecourts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and historyof the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicialdepartments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,and the geographical divisions.1. Judicial notice defined.2. Basis of judicial notice.3. Kinds of judicial notice.

prsitively identified by a credit'le rvitness. Pcople n*. Pcran,te, Jr., 149 SCRA 56;Pco\tle oa. Abigan., lltlt SCRA 180; People as. I.ltlrlantors, gs SCRA 76li People os.Herila, 51 SCRA 31 ; People as. Cobanit, 159 SCRA 94,In rnany criminal cases one of the most important aids in completing the proofof the conrmission of the crime by the aecused is the introduction of evidence dis-elosing motive which tempted the mind to indulge in the aet. U.S. os. Carlos, 75PhiI. t7, 51.Evidence of circumstatrces tending to show that flight of one accused of an offenservas not because of sense of guilt or fear of arrest or to show motive consistentwith innocence, such as advice of friends, is admissible. Home Ins. Co. of NewYork as. Tra.rnnr.ell, 160 So. 897, 930 Aln. 275.The conduct, actions, and general behavior of the accused, immediatell' precedingthe homicide, are relevant to show that he was armed and in a various humor.Kertnn as. State,65 lltcl.95g,4 A. 121*; Com. us. Ectton'8 PhiL (Pa.) 49s; Stutc,us.Trankil, 71 S.C. 136, 50 S.E. 551,The grounds on which the conduct and general demeanor of the accused afterthe crime are held relevant is usually held +o be their indication of a corrsciousness


2/18

o, RULES OF COURT sEc. 1, RULE 1Z{'4. Application of doctrine of judicial notice not confined to courts of record.f. f:fiect of judiciat notiee on burden of proof.6. Stip;ttt"n of parties cannot prevail.ovei operation of doctrine of judicial notice.7. Mitters subjecl to mandatory judicial notice.QUESTION t.

-What is iudtciul notice?

ANSWER. - The term "judicial notice", means no nlol than tl-rrltthe court will bring to its aid and consider' without -ry9of of the facts,itr t "o"'tuage of t"hose matters of public ccncet'n which are known byall well-informed Persons.lQUESTION 2. What is th'e obiect of iudicial notice'?ANSWER. - The obiect of jutticial notice is to save time, labor and"*pu"r.ln securtng and introducing evidence on matters which ane not"tAi""rify .opJUt" 6t ai.putu antl ar[ not actually bona fide disputed, andth; G;;. oC *rti.ii can- iafety be assumed from the tlibunal's generali.**fuag" or from a slight search on its part. Judicial notice, is there-p fore, baslcl upon convenience and expediency.lQUESTION 3. - What s're the t$nds oi iud'icial noticc?* ANS\\rER. - Th'e taking of judicial notice is of two kinds: man-datory :ind discretionary. ti_ is manclatory insofal as those mattersiriumLrated under S""iiott 1, Rule 129 are concetned, but discretionary*ao" Section 2 thereof on matters which are of publie knowledge, or*i- ."p"Uf" of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known tojudges because of their functions.sQUESTION 4. - Is the apphcation of the rule of iu'ilicial not'iceconfi,ned only to courts?ANSWER. - To take judicial notice tlnd apply it to the decision ofo .ui" ii a right *iti.1 appertains to every court of iustice,- from thei;;;i, To tr.t" Iich.rt. The application of ihe doctrine of judicial,.noticeis not'confined to-couits of recbra. Certain boards and special tribunatswhich are not strictty courts but which partake of their nature and thefinai"g. "f *tti"tt p"itake of the nature bf judgments may take judicialnotiee of certain matters.aQUESTION 5. - What is the direct effect of iul,icial notice u,ponthe burden of prooing a fact?ANSWER. - The direct effect of jutlicial notice upon the burdenof proving a fact is io "efieve ihe parties fiom the necessity of introducingevidence 1o prove-the fact notic'ed.5 Judicial notice, i1 ils appropriateiield, displacis evidencr*in.u as it stands for proof,-it fulfills the objeet*fri.ft "uid"n.e is designed to fulfill and make^s evidence unnecessary'GQUESTION 6. - Mw stipulations of the.nlyt .ep or their counselprrri,ii oner the operation of ihe doctrine of itr'dicial noti'ce?ANSWER._No.StipulationsandadmissionsoftheP|r ie:.o1their counsel can "ot p".u"ii over the operation of the doctrine of judicialt St"1[.. Kelly, 81 P. 460, ?1 Kan. 811, ?0 L.R.A' 450, 6 Ann' Cas' 298':;2 Wigmore on Evidenoe, Sec. 2565.3Secs.'i and 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court, as amended' ..riim vs. colecto"-of-cLito*i, ,36 Phil. 4?2; International Harvester Co. vs.Ur*[r,ig" li.er'iili- t i"J, &- ittit. ' 845 : Phil. llfanufacturing ..Co. vs. Union Ins's&i"ti 5f canton,4zlhii. a?8; Adong vs. cheong seng Gee,43 Phil.52.r McKelvey on Evidence, 19.oChiulla bu lu.u-i.. Uo"iiora Park Com'rs.,94 Conn. ?, 107 A.611' 612.


3/18

sEc. 1, RULE 129 DVIDENCE ta

i

notice, and such stipulations :intl admissions :rre all subject to the operationof the doctrine.iQUESTION 7.

-WhaL facts e,,.e subject to manclato,ry juilici,nt

ttotice? G.i'ue exam,ples of each.AI.IS\VER. - The court shall take judicial notice of the following:. (ul - Teryitotial ertant - All cour'ts of justiee are bound to take judicialnotice of the territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the gove-rnmentthe larvs of which they administer and o{ the extent and bounrlai.ics of thctemitory u.der rvhich they themselves can exercise jurisdiction.n. (bi Gtnerql histot'11. - Courts haye always and without exception takenjudicial cognizance rvithout proof of those great historical events which haveaffected the destiny of our nation or of othel nations. 'Ihe grounds of theirnotice ale tho common knowledge and open fame of such lvents.e courhstake j-udicial notice of the World lMar,lr) ihe countries involvetl therein,rr 16"distrtrbances in btt-siness, industrial and financial affairs during and foliowingsaid.u'ar';l: the Civii War betlveen thestates of the Union and its causes;t.rthe itrsurrection against the United States in the Philippines and the date ofits. inception.r'r It has been held that judicial r.rotice-may be taken of thec'xistence-and purpose of the Makapili organization as matiers of public ncto-riet5' and interest and as part of conternporary history,ro(c) I'otttts oi goaernntent of statet. - The rule must be taken with thequalification that it relates only to such governments as have been reeognizeclby- the home governmentlri The recognition of a for:eign gqover.nment is apolitical rather than a judicial matter and thelejlore couits follolv the deter-mination of the executive departrnent of the forum.r?(d) SyrnboLs of natioualitd. - In conformity to the law of nations alleoults in a governnrent, rvhere that governmerrt has recog:riz,r:d the existenceqf a f


4/18

IA RULES OF COURT SDC. 1, RULN 129seals of foreign rnaritime and admiralty courts. By cotnuloli conscttt andgeneral usage; the seal of a eourt of admiralty has been corlsidexed assufficiently authenticatinF its records.:::(S) Political constittttion antl historlJ of th,c Philip1tines.. - The courttakes-'jutlicial rxrtice of the fact that on Februaly 5, 1945, the- saat of thegovernment of the so-called Philippine Repubiic had been ttansfen:erl to the-eity of Baguio, and that the commander-in-cheif of the Japanese Imperialforces had iikei.'ise left the cii,y e1 Manila and that the Japanese Imperralforces no longer had effective coirtrol ovel the City of Manila and ihe Provinceof Rizal, as they had, been retreating to the mountains, pursued by- the UnitedStates Army arid the Philippine Guerrilla forces, and, consequently, wrth theloss of the effective control over the City of Manila and the Province of Rizal'thc authority of the enenry forces of occupation had ipso facto ceased.-T(h) fu[atters relatittg to the legi^';latiuc deTturtment. - Co^urts are boundto taiie judicial notice, 4J a matter of la.,'r', of the dates rvhen C-ongress beginsuttd "loJo" its session; the number, functions and plivilegrs of its members.ioint resc,tuilons of public charlcter passed by the legislature mtlst also btrjudicially known.i'4(i) Mutters re.la,tin.g to the anectttiae de7>artment. - Judicial_notice nrustbe taken of the organization of the Executive Department of-the Government;its principal offioers elected or appointed, such as the Presi{ent, his porverr-sand'4utie^s;:::, the vice-President and cabinet officers; zti hcads of Rureaus;':?rvho is or 1.as at any time the chief Executive of the Philippines;:s the l)epa-rt-ment Secretaries, juch officers as the Attorney-General;::rl and. -the In*'ularAuditor.so Courts nray take judicial notice of the provincial officers withintheir jurisdiction,sr of- the municipal officers of a city or torvn therein,$: 15well as o{ their signaturss.:l3(j) Ma,tterc relating to the cou|ts of irt::tice. - The Suprenre Cour:t irastakeri" judicial notice of -its record in a previous case in connection with thoconduci of the litiganb or witness on a similar matter.s{ But the Suplcme'courb does not taiie judicial notice of procecrlings in the various cour"ts otjustice in the PhilipPinss.{tr'The lach of jurisdiction appearing: upon the face of lhe record, thoSupreme Court is bould to take notice thereof, and nray heaf ttrgutnents uponthe question, although no objection to the want of jurisdiclion was raisecl inthe court belorv.sti

.r2Thompson vs. Stewart, S Conn. 1?1,8 Am. Dec. 108; Yeaton vs. Fry, 5 cr.rnch(U.S.) 335, 3 L. Ed. 117; and others'ri Sameth vs. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 613.s4McCarver vs. Herzberg, 120 Ala. 523,25 S.3; Kingman vs. Penobscot CoulltlyComrs., 105 Me. 184.While there are no adjudicated cases in this jurisdiction upon the exact question o-fwhether the courts may iake juclicial notice of the legislativa jou,rnals, it is rvell-settled in the United Strt." that such journals may be noliced by the courts indeterrnining the question rvhether a particulal bill becarne a larv or not. (Strrteex rel. Herion vs. Smith,44 Ohio 48). ^The result is that the larv and the adjudicatcdcases make it our duty to take judicial notice of the tegislative journals. of thespecial session of the Philippine Ligislature of 1914. U.-S. a-s. Pons,34 Pllil' 7)9.e5 Canal Zone vs. Mena, .2 Canal Zone 170':'a Perovich vs. Perry, 167 Feb. 78.27 Backus Portable -Stet* Fieater Co. vs. Simtnons, 2 App. (D'C') 220.28Moon vs. Harrison,48 Phil.27.m State vs. Board of State Canvassers, 32 Mont. 13' 79' p. 4C2.so Daily vs. State, 171 Ind. 646.erlongshore vs. State, ?6 S. 33: Wcbb vs' Iielsey,66 Ark. 1E0,49 S'W.819.32 Himmelnran vs, Hoadley, 44 Cll, 213.3s Ryan vs. Young, 14? Ala. 669' Hirnmelman vs' Hoadley, supra.The- judicial notice of the proclamations was not an error on the part- of thecourt becir:se Executive Proclamations are among the matters rvithin jrrdicial noticeunder Section 1, Rule L29 of. the Rules of Court. Illtuticipality of 7'uctrt'ottg ts.Abragan,22 SCRA 518.

3a Dizon vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-346?9.3i) Mortera and Eceiza vs. lvest of scotbn,l Insurancc office, 36 Phil. fic4.36 Government vs. American Suretl' Co', 11 Phil. 20:i.


5/18

sEC.1, RULE 129 EVIDENCE 26As a general r.ulc, courts are not authorized to take_ judicial knowledgeof tfr.i conlents of the reeord of other cases, in the adjudication of caseso*"{i""'before them, even though the trial judge in fact knows o-r rememu-ers[tr" "orit""tr thereof,'li or even when said other cases have bcen heard or arepending in the same court and notwithstanding tle fact that.b;oth cases mayiuuu ti"" heard or are really pending before the same judge.3s Ho'ever,i" itt" absenee of objection ahd- as a matter of convenience to all -parbies,a court rnay properll. tren all or any par.t- of ihe origir-ral record of a caseiif.a i" its- ai'chives- as re.ad into recoril of a case pending before it, wheni;;ih t-h" k"o*lndg" of the opposing party, reference is made to it for t}tepri.p"-" fv na*e i"a number or: itt some other manner by rvhich it is sufficiently'des,ig'nate,d, or when the originnl record of the forrner ca-se or any part ofit ii' actually withdrawn from the archives Fy. ttre court's direction at ths

"uqouri-o"_'*ittr conse.rt of the parties an


6/18

26 RULES OF COURT SEC. 2, RULE 129the sun rises or sets on a certain day, the abscnce or duration of twilght,the presence or absence of daylight and the natural conditions oJ visibility.l8But the court rvill decline to know judicially the operations of such lawsof nature as may be neutralized or offset by others and consequently arevariable in their action; and it will not take such notice where the existence ofa minor law or nature or its operation in a particular instance is disputed.lVhile certain facts of physieal geography are judicially noticed, variation ofclimate, or meteorological conditions in particular places at particular timescannot be judiciallY known'lu(l) Meagute ol time. - Courts wiil judicially notice the things properlybelonging to an almanac. The courts take judieial notice of the calendarand of the periods within the calendar. They take judicial notice of thecomputation of time, the subdivision of the year into nonths, rveeks, and days,the days of the week, the order of sueceeding days of the week, the nu-mb-erof dayi in a month, the ooincidence of days of the rryeek rvith days of themonth, and of the days of the month with those of the year. Likewise, courtsjudicially notice the day of the week on whieh any partieular clate has fallen,although it has been held that this rule will not be extended so as to cover;' an unieasonable time in the past. The subdivision of the day into hours andtheir ordel of succession are also judicially nuticed.so(m) Geographicgl &iuisions. - Judicial notice has been taken of the facto that'the Philippines is divided into'provinces, municipalities, torvnship.s ardbarrios; that certain cities are divided into lots, blocks and strcets;5t 966boundaries of each political subdivision as prescribed by statute, such as thoseof the City of Manila and provinces; that known places are or are not withincertain boundaries, as for instanco, that a eertain municipality is within a certainprovince;s2 that Sacristia Street is within the City of Manila;53 that a certainplace opposite to l\fagallanes landing is within the City of Manila;rl thatSan Juan Heights is a suburb of the City of Manila and u'ithin the zone overwhich the Cour of First Instance of Manils has jurisdietion;;; ,nU that acertain barrio is within a certain municipality.r'rlSec. 2. Judicial notice, ulten, disct'etionarE. -

A court may takejudicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capableof unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to iuilges becauseof their judicial functions.1. Matters subject to discretionary judicial notice.2. Personal knowledge of judse not judicial knowledge of coutt.3. Matters of judicial cognizance need not be actually known to judges'4. Power to take judicial notice must be exercised with caution.

QUESTION 1. - What facts are subiect to dtsct'etionary iudicialnoti,ce? Giae eramples of each.ANSWER. - A court may take judicial notice of the following:(a) Mattera of pttblic knotuledge.

-The matter of which a court r'l'ill

take judicial notice must be a subject of common and general knorvledge. Inother words, judicial knowledge of facts is measured by general knowledgpof the same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognized or known whenits existence or operaticn is accepted by the public without qualification orcontention, The test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact involvedas to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. Thus, the courtsmay take judicial notice of the existence and locetion rvithin the territory overas De Sarosola v-". Yubiao Sontua, 4? Phil. 365.4$ 23 C.J.S. 140-141..r{ iit c.J.s. 699-7c0.51 tI.S. vs. Gellegos. 37 Phil. 289.5:l Marzon vs. Udtujan, 20 Phil. 232,53 lI.S. vs. Chua Mo, 23 Phil. 233..'r tI.S. vs. Lim Soon, 34 Phil. 668'n; People vs. Ponferrada, et al., 54 Phil. 68'io Pcople vs. DeI Prado, 58 Phil' 637.


7/18

sDc. 2, nuLE 129 EVIDENCEwhich they. exercise jurisdiction of great rivers and lakes, and their relation toprovrncial boundaries; of the navigability of streams, constituting tristwavs oicommerce and other notorious facts concerning the same. ftE piesumllionof general knowledge weakens as we pass to srialier;J-i;."-k;orirr streams;and- yet, within the limits of any country ttre navisubiriiv-oi"i't""g" "i*iyght,Jo be generallv.known. The courts-may, ttere-to.e-i"ur."-jriai"iul knowl-edg:e thereof, as a matter of general knowledge.l-,^ JPl^ Y:rt": cylybte of unquestiotto,ble clem,oltstration. _ More realistieally,y_e,nuJu he,r,e al imp-ortant extension of iudicial notice to the new field 6t'facts "capable of sulh instant and unque-stionable aor*".t""iln,' ir a"ri""o,

generally k-nown. The couits may,- therefpurposes lry ttr" owners thereof with air assessed vatuo *u.ti Giorv

t,20 Am..Jur.49; Banatao vs. Dobbay and Tuliao, gg phil. 6f2.. ..r'he courts may take judicial notic.e of the exisience and location rvithin thcterritory over whieh they i.xercise j-urisdiction "r il.t "1";* r;; taL"s, ana tn"i"relation to provincial bcu-ndaries: oi th" "u"ie"bitiwof-;i;;*;;;o,rstituting high_ways of commerce and other notorious facts cbncerni"g tt," "u"r;: -Th; t;;il,";ii;;f ,genera.l \1ow].edge rveakens us *" puri io smaller ".na r*.r ["orvn strearlsl arrdvet, within the limits of any country -t,he navigability ;]-"'b;d-;i"er ought io--il,eFtelrauy Known. r'ne co-ur-ts nay, thereforeatake judicial knorvledg.e thereof, asa matter of general knowledge. Ed.nahrc as. bobbiu" i;d i"i;;,' ;s 'I;hii. ois.-' -"Judicial notice mav-be taken of the fact that reai prop"rtiu" J" usually 4eclaretlfor taxation Duroo"o=-bv thp ^rr,.o*-+il.-^r *,r*r. -h -A-^^^^r --^r.-^ -^^--,r- L-t,their actual malket vanie. De Ia Crua-il "ti.'ii,-i";;;"'ic ii."lzii:n, fii'iinIO, 195u,, . I: "k" .judicial -notice that the Veterans Bank is locatetl on Bonifacio Drivewhrch is heavily travelled especiqlly during the day._ such a site is not a likely placeto stage a hijack. Peope w. Olitserio, ei- al., lzti SCEA zz. -It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carrierslike trains and buses that before reachin{ a station^or-fl"g$tih"y slow do*n-a-ndthe conductor announces the name of t-he place. lf is -ir.o -" matter of commonexperiencre that as the train or bus slacke-ns its speed,-som"' f..."rg"". usuallystand -an-d proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disem'barlc as lfre frain o-i bos "o*elo a fu.ll stop. This is especially-tfue of-a train U".u"r"-p-osr"ttgu., feet-thaiiithe train resumes its run- befora they are able to dis;niba;k-,-;h;; is rvay to stopit as ? bqs may be stopped. Briii.as its. peopla, ui oi., iii-idni-oar.. Th-. Supreme Court took judicial notice that financial problem is a factor thatbeset the s_ugar indust.y; thit there is crisis in ah; ;d;-lndustry. ulioio- *.Leogarclo, Jr., 1t*p SCRA 9S6.T.he goyr .may ta-ke judicial notice of the fact that rape may be committedeven in-vicinities or piaces rvhere- people conglomerate such a's pu"lir, or tfre-roaalsides. There have been reported tasls of iape committed "iel,[--rt it"---i""Ji,Rizal Park, or even within school premises r*rere-peqn_1" uuo""a.-'Fi".or;;i.-diii'iril)lsl SCRA 569, Sec olso peopla- os. Sison, tes'SCEa-soi;.'-". This Court takes juCi-cial notice of the fact that in nrost cases, an afficlavitis not prepared by the affiant himself, but by attolher *fto ur.*-tis own lanEuaqern writinE the affiant's statements. Omissions and misunderstandings by the iritEr {are Jlot infreq'.ent,pa$ cql91l.y rrrrder-circumstance of stress and impiiienle. 1p".pi"vs. Reyasaga, 54 SCRA 850.t people os. Ramos, 15g SCRA Ai6.''- The Supreme Court-took judicial notice of ihe general increase in rentals ofreal.cstate espeeialiy of busineis estabtjshments. Coiniiai, E;"1;i: i;;.';;.- C"";ioj Appeals, 168 SCRA IAr.-- Thg Supreme Court_may tate judicial notice that the politieal upheaval of 1gE6affected.the Parilippine National Construction Co"porrtio" it-l'o*"nt""nt controlled-corporation. There was-a,change of management. pltilippine'Nalion.at ConsttitctiitCot'poration us. Fener-Coleja, i67 SCRA'gg4,-.The-Suprene Court took- judicial uotice of the fact that titles of royalty oruobility have been maintain-ed'and appear to be accorded some-vato" .-oi, io-"members of certain cultural groups in our society. ai ll" ,ame time, .o.fr iiti""of royalty and nobilitlare not_generglly recognized or act


8/18

28 RULES OF COURT sEC.2, RULE 120that uo party would think of imposing a falsity on the tribunal in the faceof an intellig:ent adversary."2 or "capable of immediate and accurate denron-stration by resort to easily accessible sources oi indisputable acculaey.":r 36variously stated.< In this rsalm fall most of the facts, theories, and conclu-sions lvhich have. come to be established and accepted by the specialists inthe areas of natural scienee,5 natr'.ral phengmena,{i chronology,? teclhnologt-igeography,o statistical factsro and other fields of professional and scientificknotvledge.(c) lJlattqrs ough,t to bc known to judges because of tl*ir julictctl ftne-tions. - In a case applicant introduced a ccrtificate signed by the ConsulGeneral of Spain in the Philippinres, stating that in accordance lvith articles 1?and 25 of the Spanish Civil Code, among other Spanish legislation, Fiiipinosare eligible to Spanish citizenship in Spain. Article 1.? provides that foreigrrerswho have obtained a certificate of naturalization and those who have notobtained such ceriificate but have acqr.rired domicile in any town of theMonarchy are Spaniards. It was held that as the Spanish Civil Code hasbeen and still is "the basic corle in force in the Philippines," :rrticles 17,et s.eq., ihei'eof may be regarded as matters hnorvn to judges of the Philippines'I'TB, specially at its iucipient or early stage, persist in u'orking despite theirailment, by rea-"on of theii sheer determination to continue earrling a living fortlremselves and thcir families (Romero vs. WCC,7? SCRA 482,489 [19?7]). f)ct'eztfs. Wot'kmcn's Cotnpensatiott Aomtnission, 9 SCBA g2S.The obsbrvation of the trial court as to the existence of gang r.ivalries is amatter of judicial notice. In fact, aside from the four killings involved in ihiscase, v'hich were perpetratcd at about eig:ht-forty-five in the morning of Good.riday, April 9, 1971 three other incidents took place in succession on that samemorning, Peopl.e t,s, Garata, et al., 96 SCRA 497. I \Yigmore on Evidence, 548.sModel Code of Evidence, Rule 802(c) (1942),a See also In re Malcorn, 129 F. 2d 529, 533 (C.C.P.A. 1942); Nichols vs.Nichols, l?6 Conn.614, l3 A.2d 69L,595 (1940); State vs. Schriber, 185 Ore. 615'205 P. 2d. r49 (1949).5 See, e.g., Electric Storage Battery Co. r's. Shimadzu, 123 F. 2d 890 (3rd Cir.

1941) (that heated oxygen will combine with lcad to form lead oxide); Russo vs.Swift & Co., 136 Neb.406,286 N.W.291 (1939) (nature and origin of disease ofechinococcosis); State vs. Schriber, 185 Ore. 615, 205 P. 2d 149 (1949) (that Bang'sdisease is an infectious and contagious disease of cattle). See Note, Judicial Noticeof lledical Facts, 36 Mich. L. Rev. 610 (1938). See also Buhrkhul vs. F.T. O'DellConstr. Co.,232 I\{o. App. 967,95 S.W. 2d 843 (1936), where the court takes judicialnotice that a barn taller than other buildings on an isolated farm rvas a place ofspecial danger from lightning.Disagreements as to rvhether particular scientific questions are within the fieldof judicial knolvledge are, naturally, not uncommon. See, e.g., Universal GraniteQuarries Co. vs. Industrial Comnr'n., 224 i4'is. 680,272 N.W. 863 (1937), and Smithvs. Harbison-Walker Retractories Co.,340 Mo.389, 100 S.W.2d 909 (1936) (thatsome dust causes lung trouble); In re Svrain's Will, 158 Misc. 17, 285 N.Y. Supp.234 (Surr. Ct. 1936), and Commonrvealth vs. English, L23 Pa, Super 161, 186 Atl.298 (1936) (that blood-grouping tests are relevant on question of paternity).eMcAffee vs. United States, 111 F.2d 199 (D.C. Cir. 1940) (maximum sndminimum temperatures in District of Cclumbia on certain date); Statc vs, Perkins,342 Mo.560, 116 S.W. 2d 80 (1935) (time of sunrise cn particular morning).7 State vs. Van Ness, 109 Vt. 392, 199 Atl. 754, lL7 A.L.R. 415 (1933) (daysof week on rvhich certain dates fell).8\Merk vs. Patker,219 U.S. 130,132 (1919) (court by reference to encyclopediaand other authorities could take notice that long before present patent was issuedthe use of horsehair mats in presses for the extraction of oil p'as rvell known inthe art).3 See, e.9., Swarzwald vs. Cooley, 39 Cai. App. 2d 306, 103 P. 2d 580 (1910)(meaning of phrase, "ordinary high tide," in the vicinity of Laguna Beach).The court may take judicial notice of the fact that on the night of a certaindate, the rnoon lvas almost full. People as. Villanueoa, 161 SCRA 511.loGroves vs. Boald of Comm'rs.,209 Ind.371, 199 N.E. 137 (1936) (populationof cities and torvns of state shorvn by federal census); Cox vs. Polson Logging Co.,18 Wash. 2d 49, 138 P. 2d 169 (1943) (trial judge may inform jury of life expectancyfrom mortality tables rvithout proof ) ; Dec. Deg. Evidence, 12.


9/18

SEC. 3, RULU 129 EVIDENCE 2Cby reason of their judicial fuuctions.-1nd pa1'be ju-dieially reeognized by themriithout the introduction of proof. (Sec. 5, Rule 123). llloreover, in a numberof decisions mere authentication of the Chinese Naturalization Law by th9Ctri""ri Colsuiate General of Manila has been held to be competent ploofof that law. (Yap vs. Solicitnr: General, 81 Phil. 4681.1rQUESTION 2. - Is tha personnl ,t;n,s'u:lctlgc of tlLe iuJgc a itt'cli'cinlknowlectge of the court?

11 Pardo vs. Republic, 85 Phil. 232.Respon4ent coult was fully justified in relying on its record in order to deter-ntine'ifr[ auiu on ivhich petiti"onirs' counsel received op]a 9 ,the -decision. Matters*lii"ft-""eht-to lo knourir to judges because of.the^r judieial-functions shall bejiiai"i"tiy-""cogaize{ by the c6urd withogt the introduction -of proof (Section- 6'iil;-iti, n"i8r oi-coit"tl. Facts rvhich are ascertainable from the record of a*uit p",i..utting are atttong thosc matters rvhieh judges- are supposed to knorv by;;;;"';i-ih.i"-;"Ai.iuL functions. In a case on -irial the court.rvill take judiciainoiice of its records and of the facts which the record establishes (People vs.lli,iiLti, i.n. N".-i-ao-rizi (unpuulished). De los Angeles cts. Ilott. Cabahug, et a'1.,10ti Pluil. 839.Appellant's first contention is besed on the assumptiotr. that the cr'iminal aclionin the 'ca"e wa= comnrenced by the filing of an inforrnation. That assumption is;;;G.-iis staiecl above, the victim and-her mother filed the complaint. for rap-e.fir.V-.ig;"4 the comptaiirt rvhich *'as sworn to before the fiscal. 'l'hat is n su{fi-"i"ni "-"ilpji"nee with Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 4, Ilule 110ot' tlu Rriles of Court. That complaint is a part of the record rvhich t"as elcvatedto if,e Coott of -irst Instance. Ii should havl been plesented in. evidence but evenii "oi ofturaed in evitlencc, it is a rnatter of judicial notiee. l'cople lus- 'l'urn'pxts,88 sclla 217.-- "i;; p;;t office practice of rvhich the Court of First Instance took judlcial notieeis not covered b1' siry of the specific instances cited abore (Section 1, -Rule 129).i("itfr"" can it be ctassified unrier "matters rvhich are of public kno-wledge, or are"rpifrf" o] ""qu"itionable tlemonstration, or ought to ie. knorvn kr judges because of;6ill" juoiciai-i.i""iio"i." For a rnatter to be tai


10/18

,tu IiIli,$S O]"I CCIUIi,T SEC. B, RULI.: 1?9ANsltr'nli. -_ Tlre mer"e tlelsonrl litrorvledgc of the judge is not thejudicial knowledge ril tlie cr.irn't; judicial cogniztnce is tahen only of thosematters whiclt iri'*i "tilmmonl.ii" linou'n. Tltus, the individu:rl and extrit-judir:i:rl ftnowlediie of the jurlgr: tliat some of the p:rrties are dead, or that

lhe defendant is lr resit-ierit of lnother state cloes not dispense with proofof those facts ancl cltrnot be rcs+i'ted to for the purpose of suirplementingtlre record.l:QUESTIOT\ 3. - Is i.t esscntittl tlmt rtuttt'.r's of iudicial cognizanccbe actua,llpl knattn. ttt tltc iucltle?ANSWBR. __ It is not essential tliat rn:rtters of judicial cognizancel-re ac:tually ]inown to the jutlge. If lbe subject is lrroper for judicirlknowledge, tfie judgt: ur:ry, 1L his ciiscretion, infolm himself in any waywhich rrury seern lrcst to hirn, ttncl :rct accordingly.r;l Thus, where the.inforrnation ch:lrges the etnbezzlement of a certain sum of money ia goldG{il'Fel}cv of t}re United States it is not birrl for not alleging t}re ccluivalent

,,f,rJue iri pesetas, and the courts will take judicial notice of the equivalenti1 t[e l1tte1 coin for tlre purpose of fixilg the penalty.la And if thelrlrties refitse to prt"rlttr.'e er,-icience of the relative value of Mexican andi'Sililipinc culrency, l.he cout't trlry considei' cxecutive ordel.s fixing thev:ilue of the sittne.16QUESTION 4. - Hoto should, tlte Ttower ta tal;e iudieial notiee bet rt rcise.tl?ANSWITR. - The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom:rnd discretion of the courbs. The powel to tlke judicial notice is to beexercised by courts rvith caution; cale must be taken that the requiqiterrotoriety eiists; and every reasona|le doubt upon the subject should bepromptly resolved iu the negative.l$Sec. 3. Jud,iciat notice, uh,en lt'earing necessary. - During the trial"-the court, on its own initiatil'e, or on request of a party, tllsY announce

probably resitles or holcls office. It is logical to assume that processes mailed toi"tltiotir Chiorrgbian and his ffroup, addreised to t]reir larvl'er at the Willianr LinesBuilding 1'ere in fact received, in -bhe absence of a notice of change of address orcounsel.- Atty. Drapiza should'have observed the legal fornrally required before acounsel ofl record may be considered relieved of his responsibility as suoh counsel onaccount of tvithdrarvai. On their part, the petit;oners themseives should have informedthe eourt of the withdlawal of tireir'coun..el after the several reminders they madeto hirn anent his tvithdrarval had ailegedly beetr ignored. Lce tts. Hontillo, Jr., 61SCRA 600.Zosimo Jenilla's verified complaint for rape rvas filed in the municipal courtof Kiamba on July 23, 1969. It rvas docketed as criminal case No. 999. It ispage 4 of the recoid elevated by the nrunicipal judge to the Cou,rt of First Instance.it *should have been marked as an exhibit by the plosecution. However, the fiscal'srallure to do so did not nrean that the trial courl did not acquire jurisdiction overthe case. The cornplaint, is a ntatter of judicial notice. People ts. Satellano, 57SCRA 390.If the complaint in a case t'hich cannot be prosecuted de o/icio (e.9., rape,abduction, elc.) is forrvalded tt: the trial court as part of the records of the prelimi-nary investigalion of lhe ca.:e, the court can take judicial notice of the same withoutthr. nccessit,j; of its folntl intlod'-rcbion :rs evldence fol lhe plosecution' People z*s.SitnpanElco, ltji .SCn,1 -'-'i.t-: Wheelel vs. Webster', .1. D. Smithlfayor', etc. of Nerv Orlea.ns vs. Ripley, 51:] Hoyb v-*. Russel, 11; Il.S. 401' 2.ClI t I .S. vs. harcl.::', :i l."l;1. 2:lii.1: (ias1rirr v.-. JIullt: :. :, lr,:l' lt?.'i,::i1 {:.J. ; itl.l.

(i{.i:'") 1; State vs. Edrvalds, 19 Mo. 6?4;La. 121, 25 Am. Dec. 175.L. ecl. 014, 6 S. Ci. 881.


11/18

SEC.3, RULA 129 EVIDENCS 31its intention to take iudicial notice of any matt,er and allorv the partiesto be heard thereon.After the trial, and before iudgment or on appeal, the proper court,on its own initiative or on request of a party' lnay tahe judicial noticeof any matter and allorv the parties to be heard thereon if such matteris decisive of a material issue in the case.1. Purpose of hearing.2. When judicial notice may be taken.3. Judiciai notice taken during trial distinguished fron, that taken after trinl butbefore judgment or on aPeal.4. Determination of facts subjeet of .iudicial notice.QUESTION t. - What is the p'urpose of n hearing?ANSWER. - .i\ ltearing: may be necessrry, not for the presentationof evidence, but to afford the parties leasonalrle opportutrity to plesentinformation relevant to the propriety of taking such jgdiciul notice or totlre tenor of the mattel to be noticed. (See Rule 804 of tire i\{odei Codeof Evidence).1This pr.ovision is baserl upon ltasic notions of lrrocedunil due pr'o1es-e,silce judicial notice largelS' preempts the normal ecttlse cf the f:rct-firrding procedure.s

QUESTION 2. - At u:lmt sttLge may the: rourt tulte irulir:ial noticeoi u faet?ANSWER. - Judicial notic:e of il fact ma_'l be taken (&) during trial,(b) after trial and before jttclgnrent, or (c) zq)peal. In all instances, theCourt may act on its own initiative or on request of a partl'.3/QUESTION 3. - Distingui,sh iu,rlicial noti.ce taken dut"tng trial, f''om.iudicial notice taken after trial but before iui,gment, or on artpeal'ANSWER. - A distinction is made between judicral notice takenrluring trial and that taken aftel trial but before judgment or on appeal-Durin? the trial, the Court may announce its intention to take judicialrrotice-'of anu rnatter and may hear the parties thereon.e For instance,in a trial, a -witness stzltes: 'iI came home about the time of sunset. Ibelieve it was September l'r. I know it was a weekend." The Court mayannounce its intention to take iudicial notice that September 5 is a Sundayand that sunset was 6:40 p.m., aud give the parties an opportunity to beheard on the matter. ,After the trial, but before judgrnent or on appeal, the court maytoke juclicial notice of any matter and allow the par:ties to be heardthereon if such nratter is rlecisi,ac of a matet'ial issu.e in thc case.6 Forinstance, in a suit on a promissory note the plaintiff recovered judgmenti1 the iower coult. After the appeal w1s taken, the appellate court


12/18

RULES OF COUIIT sEC. 4, nULE 129raih'oad company for damages for personal injuries, claimed to have beencrused by the railroad's failure to comply with the safety rules promul-gated by the L:rnd Transportation Commission. The arttorney for thedefendant, apparently after the apperrl, discovereci that zl rule h:rd beenpromulgated by the Commission that rvould negate the alleged negligenceof the defendant. Counsel for the defendant may reqLrest the appellatecourt to take judicill notice of that fact and the lattcr miiy lequire thecounsel of the plaintiff to be heard.An :qrpellate court contemplating judicial notice should notify tireparbies so that the propriety of t*king notice :rnd the tertor of the nt:rtterto be noticecl can bc eugued. The pcint ol-rviously may be decisive ofthe appeal or the court wottld not be considering it. Even u'here thefact apperrs indisputable it may be fairer to allow the adversely affectedparty to challenge its relevancy or raise tlie possibility of remurdingfor further proof. If oral argument has alreacly been completed, thecoult should at least afford the parties an oppoltunity to submit supplc-rhent:rl bliefs.6

QUESTION 4, - May tlrc cout't consult approTtt"iate and reliabletowces ol inf ormat'ion in rJ,etemdwing u'hether a fact is p'roper su,b:iect ot'iud,icial not'ice?AIIS\'VER. - Yes. The judge r'l.tay consult wolks on collateralscriences or :rrts, touching the topic on trial. He may dt':nv, for instance,on ntythology, in order to determine the meaning of similes in an antbi-piuous writing. IIc may refel' to almana.cs; he may apireal to his ownmemory for the meaning of a woi:d in the l'ernacttlar; he m:ry, as to thorneaning of terms, refer to dictionaries of science of all classes; he maycletermine the meaning of abbreviations of Cliristirrn names ancl officesand of other cornmon ter-rns; zts to a point of political history (e.g., therecognition of a foreign gover"nrnent) he may consult tlie executil'q dgpar:t-ment of the state; he may cause inquiry to be made as to the practiceof other courts; and Lord Hardwicke went so fzrr as to inquire of atteminent conveyancer as to a rule of conveyancing practice. And also thecourt may irave recourse to the legislative rolis to deterrnine the con-struction of a statttte.?

Sec. 4. Judieial admi.ssions. - An admission, verbal or rvritten, madeby a lnrty in the course of the proceedings in the same case' does _notrequir-e proof. 'Ihe admission may be contradicted only by showing thatit rvas made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.1. Judicial admissions defined.2. Extrajudicial admissions defined.3. Judicial admissions distinguished from extrajudicial admissions.4. Forms of judicial rdmissions.5. Ef1cct of invalid and ineffective deniai of actionable docuntents.6. Adnrission contained in pleadings filed in anothcr action.7. No adrnission arises rvhen defendant is adjudged in cicfeuit.8. Stiprrlation of facis in criminal cases.9-10. Adrnissions in rvithdrau'n, supcrsedcd or ar:rcntled plcadings.11-13. Effect of judicial admissions.

QUESTION 7. - Defitzc judicial admissions.'j Currie, "Appcllate Courts Use of Facts Outside of the Reeord by llesorb toJudicial Nolice and Itrdependent Investigation," 1960 \1 isc. L. Rev. 39, 52.? Wharton's Crirnitial Evidence.

iII

oo


13/18

SEC, 4, RULE 129 EVIDENCEANS\4iIIR. * .Iudicial admissions ue thcse so rnacle in thc pleadingsfiied or in the progress of a trial.lQUESTION 2. - Define entrajurlicial admissi.ons.ANSWEB. - Extrajudicial admissions are those made out of court,cr in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration.zQUESTION ?>. * Distingui.sh, iuclicial admissions from, ertc"aiudicial,utlm,iss'iorts.ANSWER. -.- Juclicial admissions are conclusive upon the part5rmaking them, while extrajuclicial admissions or other admissions are, as:i rule and where thc eiements of estoppel are not lrresent, disputable.sQUIISTION 4. - Vl/ltat ure the dif f erent forms of judicial ad,mis-sions ?ANSl,Vi.lR. - A judicial zrtlmission may be oral as a verbal waiver"of proof m:rde in open court, lr. withdrerwal of a contention, or a disclosure

nr:idc trefore the couri, or &n adrnission made by a witness in the courseof his testim;:n.', or" clcposition, or may be in writing as in pleading, billnf prrticuirls, slil"rul:rtion of, facts, request for admission, or a judicialrd.mission contained in an affidavit used in the case.aQUESTION 5. - lVhat is the effect of an inualid, and inef f cctiuetlania of actionul:lt doannents attached to the complaint?ANSWER. - In a case, the court held: "The rule provides: JudicialAdmissions. - Adrnission, verbal or written, made by a party in thecoul'se of the proceedirrg in the same case, does not require proof. The:rcimission may be contr':rdicted only by showing that it was made through1;llp:rble n"listake or that no such admission was made.""As e:lrly as 1925 in the case of Asia Banking Corporation vs. WalterE. Olsen & Co. (-18 Phil. 1129) rve have ruled that documents attached toilre complaint :rre consiclered a part thereof and may be considered aseridence althcugh they are not introdttced as such."The Deed of Exchange was attached to the petition. Necessa::il3',JALECO'S contention that it has no knowledge or information sufficientto fr:rtn il belief ers to the truth of the tleed of exehange becomes an invalidci' ineffective denial pursuant to the Rules of Court. Under the circum-stances, the petitioner cottid have easily asserted 'whether or not it executedthe deed of exchange. 4"Considering the admission by Chua and the non-denial of JALECOc.f the document forming part of the petition, the appellate court committedleversible error in not admitting the deed of exchange as evidence."6SUESTION 6. - Is an admission containerl i,n a pleaclr.ng filed, incnotlter actian motcrial to thc issue. on tt'iul a iudicial admdssion?ANSWER. - No. To be considered a judicial admission, the admis-sion n:ust be mlile in the same case, otherwise, it is an extrajudicial:Ltinrission.6r 2 Joncs on Evidence, Sec, 89.1 ; Anderson's Dict.; Bouv. Dict.; 1 Greenleaf onEvidence, Sec. 2?.e Pelry vs. Singson, 40 Conn. 313; Tracy's Handbook', 62 Ed., pp, 9-10.;tBarber vs, Ilennett, 60 Yt. 662; 5 Ail. 433, 1 L.II.A. 224.{ 31 C.J.S. 1069.a Philippine Bank of Cornmunicati,)ns vs. Court. of Appeals, 195 SCRA 567.0 See Sec. 4, Ruie 129. Rules of Court, as amended.

OD


14/18

s4 RULES OF COURT sEc. 4, RULE 129An aclmission macle in anothcr case does not have the same force aso :uai"i,,r-';d";i-*ri"; in the same case, but is regarded as being in thenatu"e of an extrajudicial admission.TQUESTION 7. - Does faiture to answer the complnint amwnt toju,rliciat adnlission of the facts ailegeil thcrein?ANSWER. - lvhen a clefendant is declarecl in default for havingfilecl to alswer tfte compiai"t, *"tt a failure does not amount to an admis-sion of the flcts ;it6;d in tle complaint.s If the defendant fails to:lnswer within the fi;;;p".ili"O-i" thd rules, the court shall, upon -m9ti93oi the pf,,intitt ana prJ#;i il"h failure, deciare ttrg {e{9Laant in default'iftur",,put,, the court-tit^fi-pto."ed to receive the plaintiff's evidenee andr."4"" juAlt"e"t gra"titrg trim suctr lelief as the Cornplaint and the factsliroven **y *urronl.' in ttris connection,.it ,has,been plonosed. by.theRevision oommittee "r trc noit* of court'that judgment'be rendered onii';;i;;,ti"g* i" .uru of default on the part of the defendlnt.lot eunSTIoN 8. - /s a stipulation of facts allou


15/18

sEc. 4, RULE 129 EYIDENCElight to introduce his defense, and rest its case.la The parties may also:rgree that a specified witness, if called to testify, would testify to certainfacts, give testimony of a particular kind or character, in a particularmanner, or to a stated effect.16

Stipulations voluntarily entered into between the parties will berespected and enforced by the courts unless contrary to public policy orgood morals.rG A formal judicial stipulation as to the facts is conclusivebetween the parties as long as it standsl? and such facts are not subiectto contradiction by showing the facts to be otherwise than as agreedupon.r8 However, the binding effect of the facts applies only to the partiesin agreement; it is no more binding on the court than any other evidencein the case.leQUESTION 9. - Mag a pleadi'ng which has been superseded' oramend,ed, be considered as iu.dicial ad,missi.on?ANSWER. - Under the rule of procedure, pleadings superseded oramended disappear from the record as judicial admissions, and in orderthat any statements contained therein may be considered as all extra-judicial admission, said pleadiugs should be offered formally in evidence.If not offered in evidence the admission contained therein will not becousidered.sQUESTION 10. - The origi,nal complaint in the Eiectment Caseread,s:"The pluintiffs and, the defen'il,ant Macaria A. Bautista at'e the lngalheirs anil neat'est of kins of Margarita Torres, who ilieil 'tn Tanza, Caai'teon December 20, 7997."The statement, accord,ing to petitioner, is an ad,mission of her legiti,'nwtion and is controlling in the determitwti,on of her participati'on in thetlisputed, pro'perty. In the Amended Complaint filed' by pri,aate respon'd,ents in the same Eicctment Case, the und,erlined' portion uas d'eleted' sothat the statement sintply read: "That tlre plnintiffs are the legal heirsand, nearest of lcin of Margarita Torres, who ilteil at Tanza, Caai'te on

raPeople vs. Hewkins,2T lll,zd 339" 189 N.E. 2d,262,253 (1963): "An accusidby stipulation may waive' the necessity'of proof of all or part of the case, whichtf,e People have alleged ageinst him, and having done so, he cannot complain o-ttevidence whlch he stipulated into the record," following People vs. Hare, 26 lll. zd't321, 186 N.E. 2d 1?8, 1?9 (1962). But see United States vs. Cockerham, 476 F. 2d642, 645 (C.A,-D.C.-19?3) holding defendant has no right to stipulate all facts of acrime if it would tend to produce an inflammatory impact on the jury. A plea ofguilty has been likened to a stipulation that no proof need be presented, therebyeupplying both evidence and verdict, thus ending the controversy. Albright vs. State,60 Ala. App.480,280 So.2d f86 (19?3).rslreland vs. Stalbaum, 162 Neb. 630, 77 N.W. 2d 156 (1966).r0 Khulmann i's. Platte Valley Irrigation Dist., 166 Neb. 498, 89 N.W. 2d ?68(1e58).1? Ireland vs. Stalbaum, supra.rs Backfield vs. Unitd States, 197 U.S. 442, 26 S. Ct. 466, 49 L. Ed. 826 (1904);State vs. Sorrell, 109 Ariz. 171, 506 P. 2d 1066, 106? (19?3). In this case the parties(in a robbery case) had stipulated that the lights (in the patking lot where therobbery took plaee) were always off after 10:00 p.m. The court held coungel couldnot introduce evidence with respect to whether the lishts were on or not at 2:00 a-nt.when the robbery occurred.1e Ireland vs. Stalbaum, supra.20Buenaventura vs. Villar, et al.; Director of Lands vr. Abaloteo, et al.; (CA)58 O.G. 3100; Director of Lands vs. Ccurt of Appeals, 196 SCRA 94.

36


16/18

II

JO RULES OF COURT SEC. 4, RULE T2OI)ecenrbe'r 90, 7937." trVhat is the effect of tlte am,ended co'tttplai'nt onthe admissions corutained, in the original cou,plaint?ANSWER. - In virtue thereof, the Amended Complaint takes thepl:r.ce of the original. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases toper{orm any further function as a pleading. The origiltal complaint uoionger forms part of the record. (Reynes vs. Compattia General de'labacos, 21 Phil. 416).If petitioner had desired to utilize the original conrplaint she shottltlhave offered it in evidence. Having been amendecl, the origin:rl complaintlost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required noproof, ilnd became merely an extlnjudicial admission, the admissibility ofu'hich, as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to petitioner'ssubmission, therefole, there can be no estoppei by extraiudicial atlmissionmade in the original cornplaint, for failure to offer it in evidence. (Javel-l:rna \rs. D. O. Plaza, Iinterprises, Inc., 32 SCRA 2611.rt

QUESTION 11. - What is tlte effect of u iud,icis'I adnission?ANSWER. - Under the rules, a judicirl aclmission cannot be con-traflicted unless previonsly shown to have been made thrtr palpable mistakeor that no such admission was made.22A1:rdmission in a pleading ou whit:ir a paltl' goes to trial is colclusiveagrinst him unless the court in its reasonable discretion allows the pl_eatlertJ withctrarv, explain or modify it if it aplrelrs to have been made byimprovidence or mistake23 or that no such admission was made, i.e., "notin the sense in rvhich the admission rvits made to appeal"' oi' "the admis-sion was taken out of context."2{xr Torres vs. court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 24. See also Bastida vs. Menzi co.,

58 Phil.223; Lucido vs. Calupitan, et 41.,2? Phil. 148.:2 Sec. 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court, as amended.Three changes have been made:1) l,he admission of a party may be vcrbal or NriLten, not ouly in the pleadings.2't The admission is made in the course of thc procecdines iu the sanre case'Bi The arlmission may be contradicted not only by showing. that it lvas madethrough palpable mistake, but also by shorving that no such admission 'n'as made.As;do from admissiorrs in plcadings. adnrissions obtained through depositions,written interrogatories or requests for atlmission filed with the court constitutejudicial admissions which do riot require proof. i'eria, Reaised Rulcs on EaitlenceAnnotated (Philippi.nc Legal Stucliei, Ser"lee No.4), p.4; See also llliuttes ol theRaaieio tr, C ontnrittee.2ilKanopka vs. Kanopka, 164 A. 144, llg Conn.30,80 A.L.R. 619; 31 C.J.S. 1171.r See Minutes of the Revision Committee.Similarly, we find no erl.or in the denial by the Trial Court of plaintiff-appellant'.sMotion to recall or corleet sone pre-trial admission. Pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 20 ofthe Rules of Court, the Order entered at the pre-trial controls the subsequent eourseof the action. I'urthermore, under Rule 129, Section 3, it is necessery for a partl'rvho desires to be relieved of the effects of admissions in the pleadjngs and any admis-eions made in the course of the trial, to show that the admission had been madethrough palpable mistake. In this case, that there 'q'as no such palpable mistake isshown by the fact that the year "1928" was stated not only in paragraph 4 of theComplaint, but repeated in the Prayer, and reiterated in the Pre-trial edmissiot:s.Gotico oe. I*:Jte Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 136 SCRA 219,Soriano is bound by his orvn petition and by the adjudication of bis claim madein ecnsonance with his prayer. A party can not trifle with a court's decision ororder which he hinrself soug'ht with full awareness of his lights undcr the prernises,by taking it or leaving it at pleasure. The allegations, statements or admissionscontained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannotsubsequently take a position eontradictory of, or inconsistent witrh, his pleadings,(McDaniel vs. Apacible, 44 Phil, 448; 49 C.J. 128-134)' Specifieally, he is not allowed


17/18

sEc. 4, nuLE 129 EVIDENCEA judici:rl admission cannot be contradicted unless first shown tol:ave been made through lialpable mistake. Thus, rebuttal evidence whichtends to show that defendant's monetary obligation to plaintiff is morethan what the l;rtter had both alleged in her complaint and tried to prove

with his evidence-in-chief is a contradiction of a judicial adrnission. It isnot allowed especially since plriintiff has not shorvn ihat stritl iudicialrdmission was made through palpable mistahe.riQUESTION 12. - When lTilemon G. Salccdo, Jr. filed ltis anszoerin th.e CFI (naw RTC) of Maniln, he repeated,ly attegeil in th,e Dleadingthat Bayani G. Salceilo is the president anrl general manttger of the F.M.salcedo & sons, Inc. He also ocknowledged th,at fact in the joint motiort,to dism'iss filed in ci,uil Cuse No. &. t724 tohich Eayani G. sa,tced,o signed,as Ttresiclent of said corporation uhile Filenton G. Salceda, Jr., affiteil lti-ssignature as a m,ere defendent (Erh. K). Wh,ut is the effect of thearhn'ission in the answer?ANSWER. - This judicial admission is deemed conclusive zrnd isrot allowed to be contradicted, it not being cl:rimed that the same was mzrdethrough a pa\rable mistake (Sec.2, Rule 129, Rules of Court). It is rrotccrrect to say that the said judicial admission was deemed supersedcrlin view of the denial of said fact in the answer filed in the present action.Aside from the circumsttrnce th:rt a llleading in one case cannot be super-seded by a subsequent pleading in another, it is incongruous to maintainthat a judicinl admission may be deemed superseded at all.26QUESTION 13. - In a eertain insoluency Tn"oeeerling the .par.ties


18/18

RULES OF COURT sEc. 1, BULE 130by different persons who entered into a written stipulation authorizingii" ol", and it was sold under the stipulation, the partigs are bound bylfr" t ti* and recitals contained in the stipulation, and after the sale, the"Epof"Uo" cannot be changed

or modified b)' any subsequent acts oreonduct of the parties.r

evidence by francisco rule 129

Documents