Discovery in Criminal Cases: Why Requests for Admission Do Not Apply

The Supreme Court has settled a long-standing question in Philippine criminal procedure: can a party in a criminal case use the civil law tool of a "request for admission" to force the prosecution to admit facts? In People v. Ang (G.R. No. 231854, October 6, 2020), the Court answered with a clear no — requests for admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court apply only to civil actions, not criminal proceedings.

The case arose from charges of malversation and graft against officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)-Lucena City and several private individuals. During trial, one of the accused filed a "Request for Admission" addressed to the prosecution, seeking to have the People admit certain facts. When the prosecution failed to respond within the 15-day period, the trial court ruled that the facts were "impliedly admitted" by the People, and later treated these as "judicial admissions" that bound the prosecution across three consolidated criminal cases.

The Sandiganbayan upheld the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Issue

The central question was whether Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — which allows a party to serve a written request for admission on an adverse party, with failure to respond resulting in implied admission — applies to criminal cases.

The Ruling

The Court held that requests for admission cannot be used in criminal proceedings. Three reasons were given.

First, a request for admission can only be served on an "adverse party." In civil cases, parties are the plaintiff and defendant. But in criminal cases, the only true parties are the State (the People of the Philippines) and the accused. The State, being a juridical entity, cannot have personal knowledge of facts or be "privy" to the execution of documents. It cannot make admissions of fact in the way a natural person can. The private complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness for the State — not a party — and cannot be served with a request for admission.

Second, criminal proceedings have inherent limitations. The prosecution must respect the accused's constitutional right against self-incrimination. The rules on criminal procedure, particularly Rule 119, already provide specific mechanisms for discovery and examination of witnesses. These are designed to protect the accused's rights, including the right to confront witnesses in open court.

Third, the joinder of issues works differently in criminal cases. In civil cases, issues are joined when the defendant files an answer. In criminal cases, issues are joined only when the accused enters a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" during arraignment. The Court noted that while this signals joinder of issues, it does not make Rule 26 applicable — the rule's requirements of an "adverse party" who can make binding admissions simply do not fit the criminal context.

The Court distinguished its earlier rulings in People v. Webb, Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra v. Risos, and Republic v. Sandiganbayan, which discussed whether civil discovery rules could apply suppletorily to criminal cases. Those cases involved depositions, not requests for admission. The Court emphasized that even where depositions were allowed, it was only under extraordinary circumstances and subject to strict safeguards.

The Effect on the Case

Because the request for admission was improperly used, the "implied admissions" and "judicial admissions" that the trial court had declared against the People were void. The Court also noted procedural defects in the prosecution's petition but ruled on the substantive issue because of its importance to criminal procedure.

Practical Takeaways

• Requests for admission (Rule 26) are for civil cases only. They cannot be served on the prosecution in a criminal case.
• The State cannot make admissions of fact. As a juridical entity, the People cannot be expected to have personal knowledge of factual events or to be privy to documents.
• Private complainants are witnesses, not parties. They cannot be compelled to respond to requests for admission in criminal proceedings.
• Criminal discovery is governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, Rule 119 provides for the examination of witnesses, including conditional examination, which must generally take place before the court where the case is pending.
• Consolidation of criminal cases does not change these rules. Even when cases are consolidated for joint trial, each case retains its identity, and the rules of criminal procedure still apply.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.