Estrada v. Desierto (Short title)
, Erap pulled Secretary Angara into his small
GR # 146710-15 | March 2, 2001 | MR- April 3, 2001
Petitioner: Joseph E. Estrada
Respondent: Aniano Desierto, in his capacity as Ombudsman, Ramon
Gonzales, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Graft Free Philippines
Foundation, Inc., Leonard De Vera, Dennis Funa, Romeo Capulong and
Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr.,
(Rule 129, Section 4)
DOCTRINE
An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
FACTS
- On October 4, 2000 Ilocos Sur Governor, Luis Singson went on air
and accused Erap of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords.
- The next day, Senator Guingona, delivered a privilege speech
where he accused Erap of the same.
- The House Committee on Public Order and Security decided to
investigate the exposẻ of Governor Singson.
- Calls for the resignation of Erap filled the air.
- Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by
more than 1/3 of all the members of the House to the Senate.
- On November 20, the Senate formally opened the impeachment
trial with SC CJ Hilario G. Davide, Jr. presiding.
- The turning point was the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, SVP of
Equitable-PCI Bank who testified that she saw Erap affixed the
signature "Jose Velarde" on documents involving a P500 million
investment agreement with their bank on February 4, 2000.
- On January 16, when by a vote of 11-11 the senator-judges ruled
against the opening of the envelope allegedly containing evidence
showing that Erap held P3.3 billion in a secret bank account under
the name "Jose Velarde," The public and private prosecutors
walked out in protest of the ruling and Senator Pimentel resigned
as Senate President.
- On January 17, the public prosecutors submitted a letter to Speaker
Fuentebella tendering their collective resignation. They also filed
their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance with the
impeachment tribunal.
- Based on the diary of Executive Secretary Angara that was
serialized in the PDI:
o In morning of January 19, petitioners loyal advisers were
worried about the swelling of the crowd at EDSA so they
created an ad hoc committee to handle it.
o At 1:20 p.m.
office at the presidential residence and exclaimed: Ed,
seryoso na ito. Kumalas na si Angelo (Reyes).
o At 2:30, p.m., Erap decided to call for a snap presidential
election and stressed he would not be a candidate.
o At 3:00 p.m., General Reyes joined the sea of EDSA
demonstrators demanding the resignation of the petitioner
and dramatically announced the AFPs withdrawal of
support from the petitioner and their pledge of support to
respondent Arroyo.
o The seismic shift of support left petitioner weak as a
president. According to Secretary Angara, he asked
Senator Pimentel to advise Erap to consider the option of
dignified exit or resignation which did nor disagree but
listened intently.
o At 9:30 p.m., Senator Pimentel repeated the urgency of
making a graceful and dignified exit. He gave the proposal
a sweetener by saying that Erap would be allowed to go
abroad with enough funds to support him and his family.
o Erap expressed no objection to the suggestion for a
graceful and dignified exit but said he would never leave
the country.
o At 10:00 p.m., Erap revealed to Secretary Angara taht
Gen. Reyes guaranteed that I would have five days to a
week in the palace.
o By 11:00 p.m., former President Ramos called up
Secretary Angara and requested, Ed, magtulungan tayo
para magkaroon tayo ng peaceful and orderly transfer of
power.
o The first negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of
power immediately started at 12:20 a.m. of January 20,.
The negotiation was limited to three (3) points: (1) the
transition period of five days after the petitioners
resignation; (2) the guarantee of the safety of the Erap and
his family, and (3) the agreement to open the second
envelope to vindicate the name of the petitioner.
o According to Secretary Angara, at 2:30 a.m., he briefed
Erap on the three points and the following entry in the
Angara Diary shows the reaction of the petitioner, viz:
o The negotiations consumed all morning until the news
broke out that Chief Justice Davide would administer the
oath to GMA at high noon at the EDSA Shrine.
o At 2:30 p.m. Erap and his family hurriedly left Malacañang
Palace and issued a press statement expressing doubts
about the legality and constitutionality of GMA's
 proclamation but do not wish to be a factor that will
prevent the restoration of unity and order.
o It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001,
he signed the letter saying that he is unable to exercise
the powers and duties of the office and that by operation
of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the
Acting President.
- On February 6, respondent Arroyo nominated Senator Teofisto
Guingona, Jr., as her Vice President confirmed by the Senate.
- Several cases against Erap were set in motion.
- On February 5, Erap filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for
a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to enjoin the Ombudsman
from conducting any further proceedings until after his term is over.
- Erap then filed for Quo Warranto praying that he be declared to be
the lawful and incumbent President temporarily unable to discharge
the duties of his office, and GMA to be holding the office in an
acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution."
- The SC on March 2, 2001 dismissed the the petitions of Erap with
the Angara diary being one of the main grounds exhibiting the
resignation of Erap as president.
- An MR was then filed by Erap (April 3, 2001 Decision), wherein
Erap devotes a large part of his arguments on the alleged improper
use by the Court of the Angara Diary. It is urged that the use of the
Angara Diary to determine the state of mind of Erap on the issue of
his resignation violates the rule against the admission of hearsay
evidence.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the Angara diary is inadmissible for being violative of the following
rules on evidence: hearsay, best evidence, authentication, admissions
and res inter alios acta;
PROVISIONS
Rule 129
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by
the 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.
(2a)
RULING & RATIO
1. No.
- The Angara diary is not an out of court statement but is part of the
pleadings in the cases at bar and even assuming that the Angara
Diary was an out of court statement, it is not under hearsay rule.
- Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness.
- There are three reasons for excluding hearsay evidence: (1)
absence of cross examination; (2) absence of demeanor evidence,
and (3) absence of the oath. Not at all hearsay evidence, however,
is inadmissible as evidence. Over the years, hearsay evidence has
been admitted due to relevance, trustworthiness and necessity.
- A complete analysis of any hearsay problem requires to determine
whether the evidence is one exempted from the rules of exclusion
which will show that they do not cover admissions of a party and
the Angara Diary belongs to this class.
o Admissions of a party should not be confused with
declarations against interest, judicial admission and
confessions.
o The admission is primary evidence and is receivable,
although the declarant is available as a witness; it is
competent only when the declarant, or someone identified
in legal interest with him, is a party to the action; and need
not have been considered by the decalrant as opposed to
his interest at the time when it was made. The declaration
against interest is in the nature of secondary evidence,
receivable only when the declarant is unavailable as a
witness;
o The term admission is distinguished from that of
confession. The former is applied to civil transactions and
to matters of fact in criminal cases not involving criminal
intent, the latter to acknowledgements of guilt in criminal
cases.
o A judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in
the progress of a trial as to dispense with the introduction
of evidence otherwise necessary to dispense with some
rules of practice necessary to be observed and complied
with. Extra-judicial admission is one made out of court.
o The most important distinction between judicial and other
admissions, is that strictly, judicial admissions are
conclusive upon the party making them, while other
admissions are, as a rule and where the elements of
estoppel are not present, disputable.
- Rules provide that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. These
admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay.
 - The Angara Diary contains direct statements of petitioner which can NOTES
be categorized as admissions of a party.
o His proposal for a snap presidential election where he
would not be a candidate;
o His statement that he only wanted the five-day period
promised by Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes;
o His statements that he would leave by Monday if the
second envelope would be opened by Monday
o "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang
masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. I
just want to clear my name, then I will go."
- It is, however, argued that the Angara Diary is not the diary of the
Erap, hence, non-binding on him. The argument overlooks the
doctrine of adoptive admission which is a party's reaction to a
statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat
the party's reaction as an admission.
o Senate President Pimentel advised petitioner to consider
the option of dignified exit or resignation to which Erap did
not object to but simply said he won't leave the country.
o Erap's silence on this and other related suggestions can
be taken as an admission by him.
- It was further contended that the use of the Angara diary violated
the rule on res inter alios acta which states that the rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided.
o The rule has several exceptions and one of which are
admissions by a co-partner or agent.
o Executive Secretary Angara was an alter ego of the
president. He was the Little President.
o He was authorized to act for the president in the critical
hours and days.
o It cannot be denied that Secretary Angara headed his
team of negotiators that met with the team of GMA to
discuss the peaceful and orderly transfer of power after his
relinquishment of the powers of the presidency.
o The Diary shows that Erap was always briefed by
Secretary Angara on the progress of their negotiations. He
acted for and in behalf of Erap before GMA took her oath.
o Consequently, petitioner is bound by the acts and
declarations of Secretary Angara.

DISPOSITION
IN VIEW WHEREOF, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos.
146710-15 and his Omnibus Motion in G.R. No. 146738 are DENIED for lack
of merit. SO ORDERED.