Chapter 2

CONFESSION AND ADMISSION

Lesson Objectives: By the end of the chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Differentiate Confession from Admission; and
2. Know the legal requirements of Judicial confession and Extra-Judicial
confession.
Concept/Discussion
Admission refers to an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact which
may be given in evidence against him.
Confession refers to the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, which may be given in evidence against
him.
Confession Admission
a. acknowledges the guilt of a person that a. a mere acknowledgment of an accused that
he is the one who committed the offense. he may be in the crime scene but not the one
who committed the
offense.
b. the most reasonable evidence for b. may not accept the liability for such crime
prosecuting a case because no person would and may invoke defenses to sway the fault
probably admit his guilt that he
was the one who committed the offense if it
was not really true at all.

c. such admission may be used as evidence

against him during the trial of the case.

Two Kinds of Confession

Judicial Confession Extra-Judicial Confession

a. made before the court of justice especially a. made out of court

during arraignment when an accused is
asked by the judge whether he is guilty or b. one is during custodial investigation
not of the crime charged when the accused is brought before
the law enforcers for an interrogation.

Extra-judicial confession to be admissible

must be:

a. voluntary

b. made with the assistance of a

competent and independent counsel

c. express, and

d. in writing
 An extrajudicial confession, where admissible, must be corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti in order to sustain a finding of guilt. In this connection, extrajudicial confessions
are presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved. (G.R. No. 216064, November 07, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v.ANTONIO DACANAY Y TUMALABCAB, Accused-Appellant.

Why do we need to distinguish one from the other?

It is because in law, confession has a greater value when it comes to the weight of
evidence.

A. CONFESSION:

1. Confession Defined. It is the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt

of the offense charged. (Statutory Definition.)

Confession is an express acknowledgement by the accused, in a criminal case, of the

truth of his guilt as to the crime charged, or of some essential part thereof. (U.S. Vs.
Tea, 23 Phil. 64)

2. Effect of Confession. The confession of the accused may be given in evidence against
him in the investigation or trial of the offense with which he is charged.

3. Types of Confession:

a) Judicial confession or confession in open court.

b) non-judicial confession, which is also called “out-of-court” or extra- judicial

confession. This kind of confession is inadmissible unless corroborated by proof of
corpus delicti.

c) Involuntary, which is a “forced” confession, and therefore inadmissible in

evidence.

d) Voluntary, when the confession was not induced by promises of benefit or reward, or
by force, violence, threat, intimidation, duress, or any other means which vitiates the free
will of the accused. A person who confesses that he committed a crime in effect waives
his right to remain silent. therefore, for the confession to be valid, it must not only be
voluntary, but also in writing and made with the assistance of counsel of his own choice,
with full understanding of the consequence of such confession.

4. When is a Confession Inadmissible? No person shall be compelled to be a witness

against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If he cannot afford the service of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiates the free will shall be used against him.

Any confession obtained in violation of the foregoing shall be inadmissible in

evidence against him. furthermore, the officer who
secures a confession in violation of any of these rights may be held liable for damages
under Article 32 of the Republic Act no. 386.

ARTICLE 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;

(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; cd

(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to
law;

(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of
grievances;

(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

5. Corroborating the Extra-Judicial Confession of an Accused. It must be

corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti to sustain conviction. This requirement does
not mean that every element of the crime must be proven by evidence independent of the
confession, but rather, that there must be some independent evidence to show that a crime
was committed.

6. Confession Made by a Defendant Against a Co-Defendant. A Confession made by a

defendant is admissible against himself but not against himself his defendant (based on
the rule on res inter alios acta MEANS 'A thing done between others'), unless the
defendant are being prosecuted for a crime involving conspiracy, the confession of one
conspirator may be admitted in evidence against his co-conspirator.

 This rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced

by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an
extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is
not admissible against his or her co-accused because it is
considered as hearsay against them.

7. Best Method of Ratifying a Confession. Confessions made by a suspect before an

investigator should be sworn to preferably before a prosecutor or municipal/city judge.

8. Crime Reenactment. This is accomplished through the use of movie cameras and tape
recorders by qualified technicians. In such reenactment procedure, the written confession
is used as the script and the officer should ensure that the details of the crime as reported
by the accused are followed during the reenactment. This strengthens the prosecutors case
and serves to convince the judge that the accused, whose face appears on the screen, was
not maltreated nor affected by sinister psychological influence. To be admissible evidence,
 some person should be able to testify on the authenticity on the recording.

B. ADMISSIBLE:

1. Admission Defined. It is a voluntary acknowledgement in express terms or by implication,

by a party in interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound, against his
interest, of the existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue.

2. Distinguished From Confession. A Confession is a voluntary statement either oral or

written, made by a person charged with the commission of a crime to another person
wherein the suspect admits participation in, or commission of, the criminal act, while an
admission is a statement by the accused regarding facts pertinent to crime. The latter
tends, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove the suspect’s guilt. To be admitted
as evidence, an admission must relate to relevant and material fact. a confession is only
admissible against the confessor while an admission may be used even against a co-
defendant.

3. Admission of a Party. The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact

may be given in evidence against him.

a) Offer of Compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offense

(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise
by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

b) Plea of Guilty Later Withdrawn or an Unaccepted Offer of Plea of Guilty to a

lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or
offer.

c) Offer to Pay or Payment of Medical, Hospital or other Expenses occasioned by an

injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
 4. Admission by Third Party. The rights of a party cannot be prejudged by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except:

a) An admission by a co-partner or an agent.

b) An admission by a co-conspirator, when the conspiracy has been established by
evidence.
c) An admission by one who is in privily with the party against whom the
admission is sought to be used.
d) An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of
party, who does or says nothing, when the act or declaration naturally calls for
action or comments it not true.

CASE SCENARIO

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 216064. November 07, 2016 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ANTONIO DACANAY Y
TUMALABCAB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO DACANAY y TUMALABCAB G.R. No. 216064,NOV

7, 2016 , CAGUIOA, J. FACTS:

An Information was filed with the RTC, accused-appellant Antonio T. Dacanay (Antonio) was
charged with the crime of Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended. That on or about October 06, 2007, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and use personal violence upon the person of one NORMA DACANAY y ERO, his wife,
by then and there stabbing her body with an ice pick several times, thereby inflicting upon her
mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter.
The RTC gave weight to the extrajudicial confession of Antonio and found him guilty of the
crime of Parricide. The CA affirmed the RTC in to to and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit,
on the ground that Antonio failed toovercome the presumption of voluntariness attended by his
extrajudicial confession. In his defense, he averred that the twin defenses of alibi and denial,
claiming coercion and intimidation on the part of the police officers involved in the investigation
of the crime. In his Appeal, Antonio insists that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible on
the ground that it was given under a "coercive physical or psychological atmosphere". To support
his claim, Antonio underscores the fact that he was inside a detention cell with two(2) or three(3)
other detainees when he allegedly confessed to the crime before the media.

Issue:
Whether or not the extrajudicial admission is admissible in evidence
Held:
 Yes. At the outset, we note that Antonio had already admitted in his Appellant's Brief that
he was not under custodial investigation at the time he gave his extrajudicial confession.
Although he was not under custodial investigation, note must be taken that Antonio Dacanay was
inside a detention cell with two (2) or three (3) other detainees when he allegedly confessed
before the media. Lastly, although confession before the media does not form part of custodial
investigation, Antonio Dacanay should have been informed about the consequences of his when
he decided to confess his alleged guilt. Hence, Antonio's reliance on constitutional safeguards is
misplaced as much as it is unfounded. We need not belabor this point. We rule that appellant's
verbal confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution.

The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual
and another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State. The
prohibitions therein areprimarily addressed to the State and its agents. They confirm that certain
rights of the individual exist without need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be
taken away by government, rights that government has the duty to protect.

The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made by Antonio while inside a detention
cell does not by itself render such confession inadmissible, contrary to what Antonio would like
this Court to believe. In People v. Domantay, where the accused was also interviewed while
inside a jail cell, this Court held that such circumstance alone does not taint the extrajudicial
confession of the accused, especially since the same was given freely and spontaneously
 FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7226. August 24, 1912. ]

HE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIO TEAM, Defendant-Appellant.

O’Brien & DeWitt for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. OPIUM LAW; CONFESSION; ADMISSIBILITY. — Where a crime has been committed, the
admission of a party charged with the same, deliberately made, are always admissible, for the
purpose of showing the guilt of such person. A confession may be defined as an
acknowledgment, in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main
fact charged, or of some essential part thereof. Confessions of guilt should always be scrutinized
carefully. The courts should be slow to accept them. They should be weighed with the greatest
care, in relation to all of the facts presented in evidence.

DECISION

JOHNSON, J. :

This defendant was charged with a violation of the Opium Law. The complaint
alleged: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about May 13, 1911, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Lio
Team did, willfully, illegally and criminally, smoke and take opium into his own body,
not for medicinal purposes not by prescription of a duly licensed practicing physician."
library
cralaw virtua1aw

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Richard Campbell, judge, in his decision,
made the following statement: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Excluding from all consideration in connection with this case, the testimony of Dr. Goff,
who appeared form the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the confession of the
accused made to Mr. Armstrong, of the Internal Revenue Bureau, on the night in
question, immediately after the arrest, taken together with other proofs relative to the
character of the house where the arrest took place and which was raided on the night in
question, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime charged." cralaw virtua1aw library

And upon these facts he sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned for a period of four
months and to pay the costs. The lower court ordered that the apparatus seized at the
time of the arrest of the defendant be forfeited.

From that sentence the defendant appealed and made the following assignments of
error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The court erred in holding that the alleged statements made to the internal revenue
agent, Mr. Armstrong, were made as a confession.

"II. The court erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove a confession." cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the first assignment of error, the question is presented whether or
not the statements made by the defendant to the witness Armstrong, amounted to a
confession of guilt of the crime charged against him. The witness Armstrong testified
that he had a conversation with the defendant at or about the time of the arrest. That
conversation was as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I asked him if it was true that he was there smoking opium, and he said it was. i asked
him if it was true that he was smoking opium when I commenced to knock on the door,
and he said it was. I asked him where the opium was and he laughed and said, ’Find it
— you will never find it if you look a week.’ I asked him if he knew where it was
hidden , and he said he did not; that the only people who knew, were the people in
charge of the den. I asked him if he did not smoke when I was beating on the door and
he said yes. He said, when we knocked, all the people came downstairs, and the people
in charge of the place hid the opium and the pipes." cralaw virtua1aw library

The witness Armstrong testified that no force whatever was used against the defendant
and that no promises of reward of any character were made to him.

The defendant was charged with the crime of smoking and using opium. The evidence
shows that the place in which the defendant and the others were arrested was a place
frequented by Chinamen for the purpose of smoking opium. In view of the crime
charged in the complaint and the statements made by the defendant to the witness
Armstrong, the question is, Did such statements amount to a confession of the crime
charged? A confession may be defined as an acknowledgment in express words, by the
accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged, or of some essential
part thereof. (Wigmore on Evidence, vo. 1, sec. 821.) The complaint charged that the
defendant smoked opium. The statement of the defendant to the witness Armstrong,
was that he had been smoking opium. It would seem, therefore, that the confession or
statement made by the defendant falls clearly within the general definition of what a
confession is. The statements made by the defendant, mounting to a confession, were
they sufficient upon which to base a conviction, under the law? We think they were.

Where a crime has been committed, the admissions of a party charged with the crime,
deliberately made, are always admissible for the purpose of showing the guilt of the
accused. (Andrews v. People, 117 Ill., 195; U.S. v. Castillo Et. Al., 2 Phil. Rep., 17 U. S.
v. De la Cruz Et. Al., 2 Phil. Rep., 148; U. S. v. Pascual Et. Al., 2 Phil. Rep., 457.)
It appears that the statements made by the defendant with reference to this smoking
opium, had been made freely and not under the influence of fear or other improper
inducements.

The appellant in this court alleges that the statements made by him to the officer
Armstrong were made in jest — that he was joking. The appellant took the witness
stand in his own behalf in the court below. He then denied that he made any
statements at all to the officer relating to the fact that he had been smoking opium. No
pretense was made in the lower court that his statements were made in jest.

In additional to the statements made by the defendant to the officer at the time of the
arrest, the record fairly bristly with indications showing that the defendant and his
companions, at the time and place of the arrest, had been smoking opium. There were
twelve or fifteen Chinamen in the house where the defendant was arrested. The house
in which the defendant and his companions were was thoroughly barricaded. The front
door leading to the house was a heavy door, composed of two or three thicknesses of
board, covered inside and out with sheet iron. Through this door there were a number
of peep-holes, the larger ones being covered by a small piece or slide on the inside. The
house was wired with electric bells, so that a person, inside the room barricaded by that
heavy door, might, by push-bottoms, give the alarm to the person about the house.
Each of the witnesses testified, that, when they entered the room, after gaining
admission with much difficulty, they found that the air in the room was laden with a
very string smell of opium smoke. A small portion of opium was found the table. An
opium lamp was also found in the room.

Confessions of guilt should always be scrutinized carefully. Courts should slow to accept
them. They should be weighed with the greatest care in relation to all of the facts and
circumstances presented in the evidence. In the present case we have contained in the
record, in finding the defendant guilty of the crime charged, in view of his confession.
The sentence of the lower court is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.