Concept of Admissions and Confessions Notes

Admission Confessions
Defined as: an act, declaration or omission of a is the declaration of an
party as to a relevant fact accused acknowledging his
guilt of the offense charged,
or of any offense necessarily
included therein
It is a statement by the
accused that he engaged in
It is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a
conduct which constitutes a
party of the existence of the truth of certain
crime
facts which are inconsistent with his claims in
an action
an acknowledgement of guilt
a statement of fact not directly involving an
acknowledgement of guilt or of the criminal
intent to commit the offense with which one is
charged

Admissions distinguished from declarations against interest

Declarations against interest Admission
To be admitted as a declaration against admissible even if the person
interest, the declarant must be dead or unable making the admission is alive
to testify and is in court;
made at any time, even
made before the controversy arises during the trial
admissible as long as it is
inconsistent with his present
claim or defense and need
not be against one's
made against one's pecuniary or moral interest pecuniary or moral interest;
admissible only against the
admissible even against third persons party making the admission
an admission is not, and is
admissible not as an
an exception to the hearsay rule; exception to any rule.

Effects of Admissions
An admission by a party may be given in evidence against him (Sec. 26, Rule
132, Rules of Court). His admission is not admissible in his favor, because it
would be self-serving evidence. Declarations of a party favorable to himself are
not admissible as proof of the facts asserted
This rule is based on the notion that no man would make any declaration
against himself, unless it is true

Classification of Admissions and Confessions

Admissions may be express or implied
Express Admission Implied Admission
is a positive statement or act is one which may be inferred
from the declarations or acts
of a person

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18

 Confessions- express and cannot be implied
A confession cannot be implied. It must be a positive acknowledgment of guilt
and cannot be inferred. Sec. 33 of Rule 130 refers to a confession as a
"declaration" which connotes an affirmative statement from the person
making the confession.

An admission may be judicial or extrajudicial

Judicial Extrajudicial
when made in the course of a judicial when made out of court or
proceeding. even in a proceeding other
than the one under
consideration (Perry v.
Simpson, Conn. 313

A confession may be also judicial or extrajudicial for the same reasons

An admission may also be adoptive.

This admission occurs when a person manifests his assent to the statements
of another person. The admission may be received in evidence if it can be
shown that a party adopted the statements as his own.

Adoptive Admission
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 of something stated or
implied by the other person

By adoptive admission, a third person's statement becomes the admission of

the party embracing or espousing it.

Adoptive admission may occur when a party:

(a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another;
(b) hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;
(c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another;
(d) replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but
ignores further points which he or she has heard the other make; or
(e) reads and signs a written statement made by another (Republic v. Kenrick
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149576, August 8, 2006).

Effect of Extrajudicial Confession of Guilt; Corpus Delicti

While a judicial confession may sustain a conviction, an extrajudicial
confession is not sufficient for conviction. The rule requires that the confession
be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

Corpus delicti
is the 'body of the crime' or the offense
Strictly speaking, it means the actual commission of the crime and someone
criminally responsible therefor
It is the substance of the crime; the fact that a crime has actually been
committed

Elements:

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18

 (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event ; and
(2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act

Corpus delicti, and all the elements thereof, may be proved by circumstantial
evidence but such proof must be convincing and compatible with the nature of
the case

While an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient for conviction unless

corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court), a
judicial confession will support conviction without proof of corpus delicti
independent of the judicial confession.

Quoting Wharton on Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, Sec. 871, pp. 1505-1506, the
Supreme Court also held that by the weight of authority, it is a rule now
established that the element of death in the corpus delicti may be established
by circumstantial evidence. To establish the corpus delicti by circumstantial
evidence, facts are admissible to show the impossibility of rescue, as at sea, to
show the existence and extent of wounds, and deceased's condition of health;
and to show that the wound was sufficient to cause death and that the party
was reported dead. Death is sufficiently shown by the testimony of a witness
that he saw the flash and heard the report, and that the deceased fell to the
ground, declaring that he was shot and that the accused shot him.

Bar 2006
What are the requirements in order that an admission of guilt of an accused
during a custodial investigation be admitted in evidence?

Suggested Answer:
(1) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained, or under
custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the
presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in
the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding (Sec. 2[d], RA.
No. 7438).
(2) The confession must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti (Sec. 3,
Rule 133, Rules of Court).

Custodial investigation
has been described as one which involves any questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins
to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the
police carries out a process of interrogations that lend itself to eliciting
incriminating statements, that the rule begins to operate (Aquino v. Paiste,
G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008).
Note that Republic Act No. 7438 (Sec. 2[f]) has extended the meaning of
'custodial investigation' to include the practice of issuing an invitation to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed.

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18

 A suspect's confession, whether verbal or non-verbal, when taken without the
assistance of counsel without a valid waiver of such assistance regardless of
the absence of such coercion, or the fact that it had been voluntarily given, is
inadmissible in evidence, even if such confession were gospel truth

Admission by Silence
Admission by silence has been traditionally received even in common law as
admissible evidence
The usual pattern for its admissibility involves a statement by a person in the
presence of a party to the action, criminal or civil. The statement contains
assertions against the party, which, if untrue would be sufficient cause for the
party to deny. His failure to speak against the statement is admissible as an
admission
the failure to deny the accusation by the person accused may be construed as
an implied admission of the truth of the accusation and may be given in
evidence against him.

Not every silence is an implied admission. For instance, the silence of a person
under investigation for the commission of an offense should not be construed
as an admission by silence because of constitutional reasons

For silence to be deemed an admission, it is necessary:

(a) that he heard and understood the statement;
(b) that he was at liberty to make a denial;
(c) that the statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in which he
was interested and which naturally calls for a response;
(d) that the facts were within his knowledge; and
(e) that the fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue

Res Inter Alios Acta; Branches

res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties
to them

The res inter alios acta 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 upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is that, on a principle
of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet
it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a
man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a
party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts
or conduct be used as evidence against him.

The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, namely:
(a) The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18

 whatever one says or does or omits to do should only affect him but
should not affect or prejudice others. In other words, both common reason
and fairness demand that a man's actions and declarations should affect him
alone and should not affect others.
The above rule has reference only to extrajudicial declarations.
Hence, statements made in open court by a witness implicating persons aside
from his own judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations from one who
has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.
(b) The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not
admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time
(Sec. 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court).

Exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule (first branch)

The first branch of the rule admits of certain exceptions, to wit:
(a) admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130);
(b) admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule 130); and
(c) admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130).

The basis for admitting the above admissions is that the person making the
statement is under the same circumstances as the person against whom it is
offered. Such circumstances give him substantially the same interest and the
same motive to make a statement about certain matters.

Admissions by a Co-partner or Agent

Agent Co-partner
An agent performs some service in Under the law (Art. 1818,
representation or on behalf of his principal Civil Code of the Philippines),
(Art. 1868, Civil Code of the Philippines). The every partner is an agent of
agent therefore, is in legal contemplation, a the partnership for the
mere extension of the personality of the purpose of its business and
principal and unless the agent acts in his own the act of the partner in
name, the principal must comply with all the carrying out the usual course
obligations which the agent may have of business binds the
contracted within the scope of his authority partnership as a rule. Hence,
under the same principle
governing an agency, the
declarations of a partner
may be admissible against
the other partners or the
partnership.

The relationship among partners is on the same footing with the relationship
of an agent to his principal. Both the contracts of agency and partnership
involve fiduciary relationships.
However, not every declaration or act made or done by a partner or agent is
admissible against the other partners or the principal.
For the admission of a co-partner or agent to be admissible, the following
requisites must concur:
(a) The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have been made or
done within the scope of his authority;

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18

 (b) The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have been made or
done during the existence of the partnership or agency (while the person
making the declaration was still a partner or an agent); and
(c) The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by evidence other
than the declaration or act of the partner and agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules
of Court).

The above rules also apply to the declarations or acts of a joint owner, joint
debtor, or other persons jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).

Admissions by a Co-conspirator
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8, Revised
Penal Code).
Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. The statement
therefore of one, may be admitted against the other co-conspirators as an
exception to the rule of res inter alios acta

For the admission of a co-conspirator to be admissible, the following requisites

must concur:
(a) The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the
conspiracy;
(b) The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy; and
(c) The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the declaration or
act (Sec. 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court)

Jurisprudence holds that the general rule is that the extrajudicial confession or
admission of one accused is admissible only against the said accused but is
inadmissible against the other accused. However, if the declarant/admitter
repeats in court his extrajudicial confession during trial and the other accused
is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such confession or
admission is admissible against both accused. The erstwhile extrajudicial
confession or admission when repeated during the trial is transposed into
judicial admissions (People v. Buntag, 427 SCRA 180).

Admissions by a Co-conspirator
Privies
are persons who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or any
relation to another

For an admission of a predecessor-in-interest to be admissible against the

successor-in-interest, the following requisites must be present:

(a) There must be an act, declaration or an omission by a predecessor-in-

interest;
(b) The act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must have occurred
while he was holding (not after) the title to the property;
(c) The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the property (Sec.
31, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18

 Accordingly, when the former owner of the property made the declaration
after he ceased to be the owner of the property, the rule on admission by
privies does not apply and what applies is the general rule that the rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another

Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases

In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is
not an admission against the offeror (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases

An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer of compromise is in relation

to: (a) quasi-offenses (criminal negligence); or (b) in those cases allowed by law
to be compromised (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

Plea of Guilty Later Withdrawn

In case the accused withdraws his guilty plea, that plea of guilty later
withdrawn, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the
plea (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

The Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sec. 2 of Rule 116), allows the accused, at
arraignment, to plead guilty to a lesser offense with the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor provided that the lesser offense is
necessarily included in the offense charged.

He may also plead guilty to a lesser offense even after arraignment after
withdrawing his plea of not guilty.

An Unaccepted Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offense

If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not accepted, the rule does not
provide for an adverse consequence of the unaccepted plea.

On the contrary, the rule provides that an unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea
or offer (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

An Offer to Pay or the Payment of Medical, Hospital or Other Expenses

An offer to pay or the 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 injured party (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

Subsequent Remedial Measures

The rule (FRE 407) provides that:

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18

 When after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would
have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures
is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with
the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent
measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership,
control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or
impeachment." (FRE Rule 407)

Evidence of Similar Conduct (second branch).

The general rule is that the law will not consider evidence that a person has
done a certain act at a particular time as probative of a contention that he has
done a similar act at another time.

The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called "propensity evidence" which
is evidence that tends to show that what a person has done at one time is
probative of the contention that he has done a similar act at another time.

Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet

allegations that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his
defense, raises a variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of the
court from the issues immediately before it.

Hence, the evidentiary rule guards the practical inconvenience of trying

collateral issues and protracting the trial and prevents surprise or other
mischief prejudicial to litigants (Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 239).

When Evidence of Similar Acts or Previous Conduct is Admissible

Evidence of similar acts is admissible for any of the following purposes:
(a) specific intent;
(b) knowledge;
(c) identity;
(d) plan;
(e) system;
(f) scheme;
(g) habit;
(h) custom;
(i) usage; and the like (Sec. 34, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

The admissibility of similar acts or previous conduct would depend on the

purposes for which such acts or conduct are offered.

Rules on Evidence – Admissions and Confessions 10.10.18