Confession and Admission
Confession and Admission
INTRODUCTION:
To the layman, confession and admission are words of similar import but to the
investigator, both have wider legal spectrum of implications and connotation. More so,
with the stringent procedural safeguards as enshrined under the 1987 Constitution.
While the afore-quoted proviso evokes myriad of questions and quizzical eyebrows
among law enforcers, however, it would be a wrong notion to conclude that the law
“puts a premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of themselves
violation the law.” 5 Corpus Juris, PP. 399, 416.
This brings to focus that the legal requirements now are more stringent and
precise than the celebrated Miranda Doctrine. (Miranda versus Arizona, 384 vs 436, 16
L. Ed. 2nd 694).
It should be noted that the purpose is not to coddle wrong-doers or to protect the
guilty, but the Constitution seeks to redress the unequal contest between an individual
and the enormous power of the government in search for truth and justice which is the
bedrock of civilized society.
In the latest ruling of the tribunal under GR 69210 dated July 5, 1989, the
Supreme Court ruled that lawyers should never prevent a person from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth.
“The court denounces in the strongest terms possible the widespread misconception
that the presence of a lawyer under the right to counsel provision of the Constitution is
intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him,” the
Supreme Court declared.
In the word of Justice Hugo Gutierrez, the right of the accused to have a lawyer is
designed to preclude the “slightest coercion that would lead the accused to admit
something false.”
TYPES OF CONFESSION:
1) Judicial Confession or confession done in open court. The plea of guilt may be
during arraignment or at any stage of the proceedings where the accused changes
his plea of not guilty to guilty; and
Get separate confessions for separate crimes or offenses. This will avoid objection
that the accused is being tried for more than one offense or that the confession for other
crime is outside of the courts jurisdiction.
EFFECTS OF CONFESSION:
1) May be given in evidence against him in the investigation or trial of the offense
with which he is charged; and
2) May be given to prove the guilt of his companions but it will pass a lot of court
argumentation and deliberation.
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.
1) The title or identification of the statement containing the name and address of the
affiant, the name of the investigator as well as his rank, the witnesses to the
statement, information as to where and when the statement was taken;
2) The certifications of the investigator and of the assisting counsel that have both
properly informed the affiant about the investigation being conducted to him of
his alleged participation in a certain crime committed;
3) The affiant shall be informed of his constitutional rights;
Such long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the
requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the
Constitution and our Laws. Instead, there should be several short and clear
questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language
known to the person under investigation). (Supreme Court Decision in People
versus Galit, L-51770, Mar 20, 1985).
4) The certification of the affiant that he was informed of his Constitutional Rights;
6) The question asking the affiant if he/she knows why he/she is being questioned;
10) The sworn statement should contain errors or mistakes in every page
intentionally committed by the investigator. While reading it, the affiant’s
attention should be invited to these errors or mistakes. He/she should make to
correct them in his own handwriting and affix his/her initials thereto. (In many
instances, the affiant upon advise of the counsel would wish to deny the
statement or set up the defense that he/she has signed the statement without
reading it. All personal corrections of the affiant thereof would disprove all the
foregoing denials);
11) The signature of the affiant (if minor – to include the signature of the
parents/guardian).
At this juncture, it is of an essence to quote the leading jurisprudence behind the
rationale of the provision. In the case of People versus Vargas the court ruled, “The
imposition in the New Constitution of an additional safeguard against extraction of
confession is a recognition of an already prevalent practice in custodial interrogation
that has tarnished the image of police investigators and which is sought to be erased by
the aforesaid constitutional safeguard”.
In the light of this development, will the investigator taken the written confession
of an accused who voluntarily surrenders and admits the killing?
Under the prevailing atmosphere, many investigators are hesitant and adamant
to take the written confession for fear of infringing the Constitutional injunction.
If however, the confession would be reduced into writing, the investigator should
profound questions on the reasons of his surrender and why he killed the victim and
other details which is relevant to the facts of the case.
If during the trial, the defense counsel objected to the presentation of the written
confession, and the accused, upon the advice of his counsel repudiated his admission,
would his confession be considered a sham?
At the risk of being presumptuous, the better view is to cite authority on the
premise. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General on the aforesaid circumstances;
“If however, he voluntarily admits the killings, the constitutional safeguards to be
informed of his rights to silence and to counsel may not be invoked”.