A N N O T A T I O N Extrajudicial Confession, 649 SCRA 689 (2011
A N N O T A T I O N Extrajudicial Confession, 649 SCRA 689 (2011
A N N O T A T I O N Extrajudicial Confession, 649 SCRA 689 (2011
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
By
ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO*
___________________
___________________
1.Preliminary Statement
In a scholarly survey of the worlds legal systems, one authority states that it is
everywhere regarded as improper and usually criminal to use violence, threats or
varying forms of psychological coercion in order to force the accused to confess.
Third degree practicesthat is the inflicting of pain, physical or mental, to extract
confessions or statements, including
_______________
* Retired Judge, Professorial Lecturer IV and Consultant (Law and Political Science
Cluster, UST Graduate School) and Dean, College of Law & Law Professor, Pan
Pacific University North Philippines (PUNP), Urdaneta City.
690
690
Extrajudicial Confession
2.Kinds of Confession
There are two kinds of Confession: Judicial and Extrajudicial. This article will deal
only on extrajudicial confession. Before an exhaustive analysis of the subject under
discussion, a definition of the two terms is imperative.
691
Extrajudicial Confession
Both admission and confession may be given in evidence against the person
admitting or confessing. Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court defines an
admission as an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. A
Confession on the other hand, under Section 33 of the same rule is the declaration
of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein. Both may be given in evidence against the person
admitting or confessing. On the whole, a confession, as distinguished from an
admission, is a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily and without
4.Forms of Confession
Accordingly, the basic test for the validity of a confession iswas it voluntarily and
freely made. The term voluntary means that the accused speaks of his free will and
accord, without inducement of any kind, and with a full and complete
692
692
Extrajudicial Confession
knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession and when the
speaking is so free from influences affecting the will of the accused, at the time the
confession was made, that it renders it admissible in evidence against him. Plainly,
the admissibility of a confession in evidence hinges on its voluntariness. (People vs.
Satorre, supra)
The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language such that if,
upon its face, the confession exhibits no suspicious circumstances tending to cast
doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with detailswhich could only be supplied
by the accusedreflecting spontaneity and coherence, it may be considered
voluntary. The problem with appraising voluntariness occurs when the confession is
an oral extra-judicial confession because the proof of voluntariness cannot be
inferred from the testimony of a witness who allegedly heard the confessant since
there is no written proof that such confession was voluntarily made. Neither can the
confessant be appraised by the court since, precisely, it was made outside the
judicial proceeding. The problem poised therefore by an oral extrajudicial confession
is not only the admissibility of the testimony asserting or certifying that such
confession was indeed made, but more significantly whether it was made
voluntarily. (People vs. Satorre, supra)
The rationale for the admissibility of a confession is that if it is made freely and
voluntarily, a confession constitutes evidence of a high order since it is supported
by the strong presumption that no sane person of normal mind will deliberately and
knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted by
truth and conscience. (People vs. Satorre, supra)693
693
Extrajudicial Confession
Having taken all the preliminaries on the subject under study, the writer will now
present exhaustive relevant rulings on the matter.
8.Relevant Jurisprudence
The following cases will give the reader a full grasp of the doctrine laid by the
Supreme Court:
1.People vs. Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 500,
dwells on Extrajudicial Confessions.
x x x There is nothing in the record to show that the radio announcer colluded with
the police authorities to elicit inculpatory evidence against accused-appellant.
Neither is there anything on record which even remotely suggests that the radio
announcer was instructed by the police to extract information from him on the
details of the crimes. Indeed, the reporter even asked permission from the officer-incharge to interview accused-appellant. Nor was the information obtained under
duress. In fact, accused appellant was very much aware of what was going on. He
was informed at the outset by the radio announcer that he was a reporter who will
be interviewing him to get his side of the incident. x x x
694
694
Extrajudicial Confession
where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress
their claim, all these should be considered as factors indicating the volutariness of
the confession.
inserted penis in the victims vagina and that he strangled her to death are express
confessions or acknowledgment of guilt. x x x
695
Extrajudicial Confession
x x x This court, with its constant tryst with retracting confessants, has drawn the
cardinal requirements for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, to wit: (1) the
confession must be voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the assistance
696
696
Extrajudicial Confession
x x x Appellant contends that his explanation about what really transpired during
the incident in his letter to the mother of private complainant should be credited as
a mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Appellant pointed out that the
prosecution had not rested its case when said letter was presented in court, and it
was marked as evidence by both the prosecution and the defense. The contention is
without merit. We can not consider in appellants favor the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution since the said letter was a denial of the rape charge,
appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and the letter was presented by the
prosecution, not the defense, after two prosecution witnesses had testified before
the court. x x x
697
697
Extrajudicial Confession
their passengers. He even described in detail the manner on how they killed and
robbed their victim. Lastly, he was the one who disclosed where the victims ring
and watch could be found which eventually led to their recovery. If not for his
testimony, the police would not have known where to find the victims personal
effects.
x x x
x x x The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its being replete with
details which could possibly be supplied only by the appellant, reflecting
spontaneity and coherence which cannot be said of a mind on which violence and
torture have been applied. When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession
are such that they could not have been concocted by one who did not take part on
the acts narrated, where the claim of maltreatment in the extraction of the
confession is unsubstantiated and when abundant evidence exists showing that the
statement was voluntarily executed, the confession is admissible against the
declarant. There is greater reason for finding a confession to be voluntary where it
is corroborated by evidence which dovetails with the essential facts contained in
such confession. x x x
x x x The applicable rule at the time of the arrest of appellants is Section 5 (b),
Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that a peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person; x x x (b) when
an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Personal knowledge,
the court has explained, should be based on probable cause which means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when the suspicion on the probable guilt of the person to be arrested is
based on facts or circum-
698
698
Extrajudicial Confession
x x x Appellants entered their plea of not guilty to the crime of robbery with
homicide and thereafter participated in the trial without questioning the legality of
their arrest. The search conducted on appellant Lozada, being an incident to the
arrest, should also be upheld. Belleza, on the other hand, waived his right against a
warrantless search when he himself voluntarily disclosed where he hid the keys and
the bag of Rosita Sy and where, true enough, the items were recovered. x x x