To reach an agreement, the two sides negotiate an agreement in writing. Why in writing? They wrote it to ensure that each party clearly understands what it and the other party agree. Because if the transaction involves a change of currency, no one wants to realize that there was a misunderstanding once the money was paid. In law, a transaction is a solution between parties to the dispute over a dispute obtained either before or after the start of legal proceedings. The term “colony” also has other meanings in the context of the law. Structured regulations provide for future periodic payments instead of a one-time cash payment. America promotes and protects contractual freedom like any other. The quintessence answer to the question: because the contract will explicitly say that nothing in this agreement should be construed as an admission of guilt or responsibility. The accused, totally and totally innocent, could have broken the numbers and decided that it was considerably cheaper to settle the case rather than pursue a decision on the merits. The accusations will thus remain outside public opinion. But it was explained by the Supreme Court that, in order to be considered an admission of tacit guilt, the offer of compromise must have been made when the criminal proceedings are in progress.
If it is made before the criminal complaint is filed or if there is no criminal procedure yet, such an offer cannot be considered an admission of guilt by the supplier. Certainly, in the case of San Miguel Corp. (SMC) vs. Kalalo (GR 185522, June 13, 2012, Ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno), it was decided that: Dear Candice von Isabela, in accordance with Section 28 (former section 27), rule 130 of the revised rules of evidence, a compromise offer can be considered a state of tacit guilt. The provision says that: Dear PAO, My cousin learned from a barangay (village) official, by SMS that one of our relatively new neighbors is thinking of filing a complaint against them for an alleged state check that my cousin would have issued earlier this year. This is impossible because my cousin has been living in Australia for two years and has not returned since she left. We are therefore more than sure that my cousin could not have issued the alleged control. We believe that the neighbour in question could have confused my cousin with someone else.